WWF LIVING FORESTS REPORT: CHAPTER 5

68 lima, m., skutsch, m. and G. de madeiros Costa. 2011. deforestation and social impacts of soy for biodiesel, perspectives of farmers in the south brazilian amazon. Ecology and Society 16 (4): dx.doi.org/10.5751/es-04366-160404. 69 butler, r.a. and laurance, W.F. 2009. is oil palm the next emerging threat to the amazon?
15MB Größe 2 Downloads 287 Ansichten
COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover

REPORT INT

2015 WWF LIVING FORESTS REPORT: CHAPTER 5

SAVING FORESTS AT RISK

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover

CONTENTS Introduction: Saving Forests At Risk

1

Deforestation front focus

Deforestation fronts

2

Amazon19

Map of deforestation fronts

3

Atlantic Forest/Gran Chaco

The world’s major deforestation fronts

4

Borneo23

Deforestation pressures

5

Cerrado25

Degradation – boreal and  temperate forests 

6

Chocó-Darién27

Biodiversity at risk in  deforestation fronts

7

Turning back deforestation fronts

8

Protected areas as defences against deforestation

10

Valuing ecosystem services

12

19 21

Congo Basin

29

East Africa

31

Eastern Australia

33

Greater Mekong

35

New Guinea

37

Sumatra39

REDD+13

Glossary, notes and acronyms

41

“Deforestation-free” supply chains

15

References and endnotes

43

Forest-friendly infrastructure

16

Acknowledgements45

Optimal land-use choices and  landscape approaches

17

Ways forward

18

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover

SAVING FORESTS AT RISK

The Living Forests Report series has explained the reasons for and implications of an ambitious forest conservation target: Zero Net Deforestation and Forest Degradation (ZNDD) by 2020. Achieving ZNDD will not happen by accident. It will require a huge, collective advocacy effort, along with policy changes by governments and industry. Achieving ZNDD will require a mosaic of protected and sustainably managed forests, integrated with other land uses such as farms, settlements and infrastructure. Strategies to get there include: preventing the squandering of forests through achieving good governance and control of outside pressures that lead to loss and degradation; protecting and restoring the most ecologically valuable forests; introducing incentives for sound stewardship of production forests; increasing efficiency of wood use; reducing waste; and optimizing other land uses to mitigate the pressure to access more land by clearing forests. The prospect of success in preventing large-scale deforestation will be improved by focusing efforts on those places where threats of deforestation and degradation are greatest. So, which forests are in the firing line and what is driving deforestation? What could help to slow and stop the rate of loss? This chapter identifies where most deforestation is likely between 2010 and 2030: these are the deforestation fronts where efforts to halt deforestation must be concentrated. The chapter also provides compelling examples of solutions for reversing the projected trends in these deforestation fronts.

UP TO 170 MILLION HA OF FOREST COULD BE DESTROYED BY 2030

The Living Forests Report

Chapter 1 – Forests for a Living Planet examines the causes of deforestation and the need to shift to a new model of sustainable forestry, farming and consumption with ZNDD.

Chapter 2 – Forests and Energay examines the safeguards needed to ensure expanding use of bioenergy helps to provide energy security, rural development and greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions without destroying valuable ecosystems or undermining food and water security.

Chapter 3 – Forests and Climate highlights REDD+ as a unique opportunity to cut GHG emissions from forests in time to prevent runaway climate change, but only if investments are made now.

Chapter 4 – Forests and Wood Products examines current and future demand for wood products and how this can best be met.

1  |  Living Forests Report: Chapter 5

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover

Deforestation fronts

WWF describes places at imminent risk of large-scale deforestation as deforestation fronts, and defines them for the purposes of this report as follows:

Deforestation fronts are the places where the largest concentrations of forest loss or severe degradation are projected between 2010 and 2030. Collectively, these places will account for over 80 per cent of the forest loss projected globally by 2030, i.e. up to 170 million ha. Forest loss/deforestation and degradation are defined by WWF as: Forest loss/deforestation: Conversion of forest to another land use or significant long-term reduction of tree canopy cover. This includes conversion of natural forest to tree plantations, agriculture, pasture, water reservoirs and urban areas; but excludes logging areas where the forest is managed to regenerate naturally or with the aid of silvicultural measures. Forest degradation: Changes within forests that negatively affect the structure or function of the stand or site over many decades, and thereby lower the capacity to supply products and/or ecosystem services. Severe forest degradation: Changes within forests that cause serious and permanent negative changes to the structure or function of the stand or site, and thereby lower the capacity to supply products and/or ecosystem services. Typology of deforestation fronts Deforestation does not progress the same way everywhere. Although inevitably a simplification, we distinguish three types of deforestation fronts:

Hard front: Gradual encroachment into an intact forest block from outside, forming a distinct edge.

Dispersed front: Numerous dispersed patches of deforestation over a large area that collectively add up to a significant area of forest loss.

Scattered forest front: progressive loss of forest patches in a forestgrassland ecosystem.

Zero Net Deforestation and Forest Degradation (ZNDD) WWF envisions a world where humanity lives within the Earth’s ecological limits and shares its resources equitably. We advocate ZNDD by 2020 as a critical milestone toward this goal (see chapter 1 of the Living Forests Report).1 ZNDD means no net forest loss through deforestation and no net decline in forest quality through degradation. With the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), we developed the Living Forests Model to consider a range of future forest scenarios and to project the effects of changes in diet, bioenergy, conservation policy, and fuelwood and timber demand. The model shows that with better forest stewardship and more productive use of arable land, the current and projected demand for food, fuel and fibre could be met without further net loss of forests. Achieving ZNDD by 2020 depends on preventing further forest loss due to poor planning, weak governance, excessive consumption, inequitable or insecure land tenure and user rights, unregulated or illegal forest clearing, poor forest management, inefficient agriculture and over-harvesting of fuelwood. In the longer term, maintaining near zero forest loss will require forestry and farming practices that produce more with less land, water and pollution, along with new consumption patterns that meet the needs of the poor while eliminating waste and over-consumption by the affluent.

2  |  Living Forests Report: Chapter 5

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover

Map of DEFORESTATION FRONTS WWF has drawn on projections in the Living Forests Model, a major literature survey and interviews with dozens of experts around the world to identify 11 places with major deforestation fronts, highlighted in this map. These places are where the bulk of global deforestation is projected to take take place over the two decades, from 2010 to 2030, under business‑as‑usual scenarios and without interventions to prevent losses.

Greater Mekong 15-30 million ha

Chocó-Darién 3 million ha

Borneo 22 million ha

Amazon 23-48 million ha

New Guinea 7 million ha

Congo Basin 12 million ha East Africa 12 million ha

I had a look at the WWF global priority places map, and it seems like the thin, most Southern tip of the front in Brazil is part of the Cerrado. This means the white line for the gran Chaco should not extend so far east. I also note from the global priority places map that the Atlantic forest goes inland to the western border of Brazil in the South, and then up into Paraguay. So we already have the Atlantic forest included if we use the yellow area on Marrio's map. So the only change to the attached screen shot is to return the southern tail in brazil to within the cerrado ecoregion boundary, and keep the Eastern boundary of the gran Chaco/Atlantic forest closer to the right edge of the blob along the parguay/brazil border.

Sumatra 5 million ha

Cerrado 15 million ha Atlantic Forest/ Gran Chaco 10 million ha

Eastern Australia 3-6 million ha

Forest

Deforestation fronts + projected deforestation, 2010-2030

3  |  Living Forests Report: Chapter 5

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover

The world’s major deforestation fronts

closed canopy forest

The table below lists the deforestation fronts and projections of likely losses, if current trends continue or changes modelled in projections come about. Projections are based on extrapolation from recent trends, expert opinion and scenario analyses where available. Most of the deforestation fronts are in the tropics, where rates of forest loss between 2010 and 2030 are expected to be highest. These figures project, from the deforestation fronts alone, losses between 2010 and 2030 of up to 170 million ha. In addition, several temperate and boreal regions are undergoing considerable degradation, even though overall forest cover is not significantly changing. These are discussed on page 6. Table 1: Deforestation fronts and projections of loss from 2010 to 2030

Deforestation front

Amazon Atlantic Forest/Gran Chaco Borneo Cerrado Chocó-Darién Congo Basin East Africa Eastern Australia Greater Mekong New Guinea Sumatra

Total from 11 deforestation fronts

Projected loss

(million ha) 2010 to 2030

23-48 10 22 15 3 12 12 3-6 15-30 7 5

127-170

Sources for the figures are given in the sections on the individual deforestation fronts.

forests in mixed landscapes

THE Amazon is the largest deforestation front. More than a quarter of the biome will be without forests if current trends continue.

4  |  Living Forests Report: Chapter 5

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover

Deforestation Pressures

Amazon Atlantic Forest/ Gran Chaco Borneo Cerrado Chocó-Darién Congo Basin East Africa Eastern Australia Greater Mekong New Guinea Sumatra

Livestock

Large-scale agriculture









■ ■ ■ ■ ■

■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

Small-scale unsustainable agriculture & logging colonization

■ ■

Pulp plantations



Fires

Charcoal and fuelwood















■ ■

■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

■ ■ ■ ■

■ ■ ■

■ ■

Mining

Infrastructure Hydroelectric power













■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

■ ■ ■ ■ ■

■ ■







Table 2: Summary of main pressures on forests in different deforestation fronts

The most common pressures causing deforestation and severe forest degradation are: large and small-scale agriculture; unsustainable logging; mining; infrastructure projects; and increased fire incidence and intensity. New roads can have a small direct impact but a large indirect effect through opening up forests to settlers and agriculture. Poor forest management, destructive logging practices and unsustainable fuelwood collection degrade forests and often instigate an increasing spiral of degradation that eventually leads to deforestation (“death by a thousand cuts”). Table 2 gives a summary of these pressures.

■ Primary cause of forest loss and/or severe degradation

■ Important

secondary cause of forest loss and/or severe degradation

■ Less important cause of forest loss and/ or severe degradation

■ Not a cause

of forest loss and/or severe degradation

5  |  Living Forests Report: Chapter 5

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover © Global Warming Images / WWF-Canon

Degradation - Boreal and temperate forests The deforestation fronts are predominantly in the tropics and sub-tropics because this is where most outright deforestation – the permanent loss of forest cover – is likely to take place between 2010 and 2030. At a global level, forest cover in temperate regions is increasing from a low base that is due to historical deforestation. However, forest degradation is still occurring in many temperate countries, through replacement of native forests with plantations of commercial species and because of increased fire, pollution, invasive pests, poor management and over-exploitation. Because this publication is focused on fronts for outright forest loss and the most severe forms of forest degradation, it does not address forest degradation more generally. The causes and vectors of forest degradation will be the subject of future investigation by WWF. Do we have a boreal deforestation front? Boreal forest covers 1,200-1,600 million ha of Russia, North America and Scandinavia; comprising roughly a third of remaining global forest.2 Although overall forest cover in the region remains fairly stable, major changes are occurring, particularly through damage to pristine forests as a result of human-induced fires;3,4 logging ;5,6 and mining.7 From 2011 to 2013, Russia and Canada accounted for 6.8 million hectares of tree cover loss, 34 per cent of the global total, mostly due to fire.8 However, most of these losses are not associated with permanent conversion of forest to other land uses. Areas where tree cover loss has occurred will mostly be left to regenerate, though this will take a long time due to the slow growth rates of boreal trees. Most boreal tree cover loss does not therefore qualify as permanent forest loss as defined for the purpose of this report (see page 2). However, it could be argued that some boreal forest areas

are becoming deforestation fronts due to severe degradation: a fully functioning forest may take hundreds of years to re-establish after a fire or clear felling, if at all. Climate change is also likely to make fundamental changes to forests in the boreal region,9 which may affect regeneration. While the region has relatively low levels of biodiversity at a global scale, it is the world’s last non-tropical forest with large, free-ranging populations of major predators and herbivores; this gives it high conservation value. For now, we treat boreal forest as a “degradation front”, and thus separate from our main analysis. This may change following further research into climate change impacts on boreal forest regeneration.

Boreal forest in Northern Alberta, Canada near Fort McMurray. The largest forest in the world stretches around the north of Russia, Canada, Alaska and Scandinavia. Huge areas are still in a natural state. But a combination of old-growth logging, mining, and increases in fire due to climate change threaten this pristine habitat.

6  |  Living Forests Report: Chapter 5

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover

Endemic species: The 11 deforestation fronts harbour unique species, many of them endangered or near extinction. Over 52 per cent of the tree species, 80 per cent of primate species, 124 forest-dependent bird species15 (70 per cent of them threatened or endangered16) and 92 per cent of amphibians found in the Atlantic Forest are endemic.17 Similarly, in the Brazilian Cerrado, there are an estimated 4,400 endemic species of higher plants, representing 1.5 per cent of the world’s total vascular plant species.18 In East Africa, the miombo ecosystem alone contains around 8,500 plant species, of which over half are endemic.19

56%

1

0 1970

1980

1990

Year

2000

2010

Key Tropical Living Planet Index Confidence limits This is based on trends in 3,811 populations of 1,638 species (WWF, ZSL, 2014).

The tropical LIVING PLANET INDEX shows a decline of 56 per cent between 1970 and 201010 © Martin Harvey / WWF-Canon

Diversity: All the deforestation fronts are highly diverse. For instance, the Gran Chaco is the largest dry forest in South America, containing around 3,400 plant species, 500 birds, 150 mammals and 220 reptiles and amphibians.11 The Congo Basin supports the highest biological diversity in Africa: over 400 mammal species, more than 1,000 bird species, and likely over 10,000 plant species. It is the last stronghold for forest elephant, gorilla, forest buffalo, bongo and okapi.12 New Guinea is also recognized for its concentration of biodiversity: Papua New Guinea alone harbours an estimated 6 per cent of the world’s species.13 Although only 11.7 per cent remains, the Atlantic Forest still hosts a strikingly high biological diversity, including around 20,000 tree and shrub species, 270 mammal species,14 1,020 bird species and 340 amphibian species. Across these deforestation fronts, new finds occur daily. In the Greater Mekong, for example, 126 new species were found in 2011, including fish, snakes, frogs, bats and 82 plants. Even large mammals there remain undescribed. A joint government-WWF expedition discovered the saola (Pseudoryx nghetinhensis) in 1992 on the border of Lao PDR and Vietnam; it was finally photographed alive in the wild for the first time in late 2013.

2

Index value (1970=1)

Biodiversity at risk in deforestation fronts

The 11 deforestation fronts contain some of the richest biodiversity in the world, including large numbers of endemic species. This makes them especially important in the context of sharply falling species populations.

Mountain gorilla family in Virunga National Park, Democratic Republic of Congo.

7  |  Living Forests Report: Chapter 5

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover

TURNING BACK Deforestation fronts

In deforestation fronts, forests are often squandered due to poor governance of land and economic activity impacting forests (see chapter 1 of the Living Forests Report).

The full value of forest biodiversity and ecosystem services is not recognized by local or export markets. Nor is this value safeguarded effectively in public policies and governance systems. Forests are replaced by other land uses that generate higher short-term financial returns, or face gradual depletion through unsustainable harvesting, hunting, fires and other disturbances. Thus forest loss occurs in spite of the risks that declining forest ecosystem services pose to society. Reversing deforestation fronts will require measures to remedy the fundamental market and governance failures that drive poor land-use choices and practices. But where to start?

REVERSING DEFORESTATION FRONTS WILL REQUIRE MEASURES TO REMEDY THE FUNDAMENTAL MARKET AND GOVERNANCE FAILURES THAT DRIVE POOR LAND-USE CHOICES AND PRACTICES.

Land-use decisions are influenced by many actors: property owners or communities with land or resource access rights deciding how to use their land; governments shaping economic policies, regulations and spatial plans; investors assessing the risk and return of a business activity in a given place; corporations managing global supply chains and anticipating market trends; and consumers deciding what to buy or which politicians to elect. Coherent and fair incentives to maintain the integrity of forest ecosystems will need to integrate these diverse interests and actors and shape the myriad systems influencing land-use choices. Systemic, integrated approaches to improved land-use decision-making are needed both in specific places and in global supply chains. In this chapter, we describe five measures with strong potential to prevent deforestation: strengthened protected area networks, valuation of ecosystem services, REDD+, deforestation-free supply chains, and forest safeguards for roads and other infrastructure. Finally, we propose the landscape approach as a potential framework for integrating these different intervention strategies to find enduring responses to deforestation pressures.

8  |  Living Forests Report: Chapter 5

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover © Juan Pratginestos / WWF-Canon

Community meeting at Nazare village discussing project development. Capim River, Paragominas, Para State, Brazil. Good governance – by governments, communities and industry – lies at the heart of efforts to reduce deforestation rates.

9  9  |  Living LivingForest Forests Report: Report: Chapter Chapter 5 5

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover

Protected areas as defences against deforestation

Effective protected area networks are a means of ensuring that representative sanctuaries of biodiversity survive in deforestation fronts. They can also serve as reservoirs for future restoration. Expanding and strengthening protected area networks is therefore one of the most important strategies available to mitigate the impact of deforestation fronts.

Research suggests that most protected areas, most of the time, conserve ecosystems and wildlife better than alternative management approaches.20 Deforestation fronts contain protected areas that have retained forests, even though forest loss is occurring right up to their borders.21 A recent World Bank study22 found protected areas more effective in preventing forest conversion than other land-use designations, with size, national park status, and management by indigenous people included among the key success factors.

challenges than less formal “protected landscape” approaches.27 Protected areas that are pristine due to their remoteness will require new and strengthened management to remain effective when the development frontier presses up against their boundaries. In critical situations, where a wave of deforestation is affecting an area, the need to respond quickly will often be in tension with the time required to run truly inclusive processes, build political will and create the capacities and institutional foundations for enduring and effective forms of protected area governance.

However, poorly governed and under-resourced protected areas are unlikely to withstand intense deforestation pressures and not all protected areas have been effective in conserving natural ecosystems,23 including within deforestation fronts.24 Documented examples of protected area downgrading, downsizing and degazettement (PADDD25) in deforestation fronts, including the Greater Mekong, Amazon, Congo Basin and Coastal East Africa, can be found at: www.padddtracker.org . Along with expanding the area under protection, success depends on strengthening management and building capacity.

Even well-governed protected areas are not a panacea. In deforestation fronts, protected areas can easily become islands in generally converted landscapes, lacking the connectivity and size needed to conserve ecological systems and biodiversity. Hence, protected area networks need to be recognized more broadly as cornerstones of sustainable land-use mosaics, and valued additionally for the provision of ecosystem services in support of inclusive “green economies”. Such economies would reverse the business-as-usual projections for deforestation fronts by setting an alternative development trajectory where natural capital is maintained and the depletion of ecosystem services associated with deforestation avoided.

Any investments in protected areas as defences against deforestation thus need to be predicated on careful assessment of the conditions for success of the protection options under consideration. For example, indigenous peoples’ reserves often serve as very effective conservation instruments,26 but require different political and institutional enablers from protected areas on state-owned land. Strict protection areas will face different

To support such economies, countries will often need to enlarge their protected area networks, enable local people to become more involved in their governance, and generate more funding for management activities needed to secure and maintain the health of ecosystems within and around protected areas.

10  |  Living Forests Report: Chapter 5

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover

Amazon protected areas and indigenous territories – a “biodiversity safety net”

Venezuela

Guyana Suriname

French Guiana

Colombia Ecuador

Protected areas and indigenous territories are the most proven mechanisms for conserving natural ecosystems and cultures. In the Amazon in particular, indigenous territories – which, in 2010, represented 31.1 per cent of the biome – are increasingly recognized for their importance in conserving ecosystems, in addition to their primary role of securing indigenous peoples’ rights to their ancestral lands. By 2013, other protected areas covered 25 per cent of the Amazon biome. Combined with community-conserved areas, this network of protected areas and indigenous territories represents the Amazon’s “biodiversity safety net”, and serves as an important defence against deforestation. For example, in Rondonia in northwest Brazil, this network has helped curb rampant deforestation from infrastructure development. In the heart of the Amazon, blocks of well-designed and well-managed protected areas enhance the resilience of the region.

Peru Brazil

Bolivia

The Amazon Biome Amazon basin Protected areas Deforestation fronts Indigenous lands

As economic development in the Amazon increases, policy and conservation measures must be strengthened to ensure that protected areas and indigenous territories continue to effectively safeguard forests and the livelihoods of those who depend upon them.

11  |  Living Forests Report: Chapter 5

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover

Valuing ecosystem services

Avoiding projected forest loss in the 11 deforestation fronts would maintain a suite of benefits.

Forests deliver a range of critical ecosystem services: carbon sequestration; food security; water services; disaster risk reduction; tourism; and a host of cultural and social benefits.28 Governments have formally recognized some of the highest quality natural forests in the world as homelands of indigenous peoples. Others are protected to secure clean, plentiful supplies of drinking water for cities located downstream, or because they conserve crop wild relatives needed for agricultural improvement programmes. Others protect sacred natural sites that are critical to the belief systems of local communities.

FOOD

Understanding and valuing these benefits, including where appropriate the economic benefits, can help tip the balance in favour of land-use choices that maintain rather than convert forests. They can stimulate and provide the justification for a range of place-based solutions, which include creating new protected areas, other forms of legal or voluntary set-asides, implementing sustainable forestry practices and restoring forests. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) process generated a series of studies that outlined the range of economic benefits provided by natural ecosystems and brought these to the attention of new audiences around the world.29 Tools of varying degrees of sophistication are available to help stakeholders assess the value of biodiversity and ecosystem services.30 Much experience has been gained in compensating the communities or individuals who are responsible for maintaining these services, through payments for ecosystem services (PES) schemes.

GENETIC RESOURCES

WATER SUPPLY

EROSION CONTROL

LIVESTOCK

BIOMASS RECREATION

NUTRIENT CYCLING

WOOD

CLIMATE STABILIZATION

CARBON SEQUESTRATION FLOOD CONTROL

POLLINATION

FISH

PEST CONTROL

12  |  Living Forests Report: Chapter 5

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover

REDD+

Deforestation and forest degradation contribute significantly to global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.31 In response, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has developed a mechanism – known as REDD+ – for providing incentives to developing countries to reduce GHG emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, and enhance forest carbon storage by improving forest management (see Chapter 3 of Living Forests Report). This mechanism differs from earlier efforts to prevent forest loss, as incentives are based on results achieved (emissions reductions), and results are assessed at the national level rather than at the project level (though sub-national results may be recognized as an interim measure). Ensuring results are evident at a national level is necessary for the integrity of the global climate change regime under the UNFCCC. Financial support for REDD+ has reached over US$9 billion.32 This represents a significant increase in international funding for forest conservation but is still not enough to address the problem at scale.33 While REDD+ finance can come from a wide variety of sources, to date it has mainly been public finance. Much of the REDD+ finance has gone into establishing the technical and institutional capacities of countries to implement REDD+ activities and measure their results. Norway,34 Germany35 and the World Bank Carbon Fund36 have established programmes that are piloting results-based payments for REDD+ at national and sub-national scales. The recent increase in pledges37 made by major corporations and investor groups to deforestation-free supply chains and investments (see page 15) is expected to play a vital complementary role in achieving REDD+ objectives. Emission reductions from deforestation and forest degradation need to be measured at the national and global level. However, the first REDD+ projects were mostly smaller, unconnected projects. Increasingly, actions are at a sub-national “jurisdictional” scale. Many supporters and beneficiaries of REDD+ implementation efforts – from the World Bank Carbon Fund to large forest countries such as Brazil and Indonesia – are taking an approach that gives preference to work at state, province or district levels, in recognition of the unique advantages that work on this scale can afford (see DRC case study).38

REDD+ = reduced emissions

from deforestation and forest degradation

Jurisdictional REDD+ programmes work on sizeable, sub-national landscapes, nested within national level frameworks. They focus on building capacities, safeguards and engagement for REDD+ from the bottom up with communities, businesses and local and national governments. With this approach, REDD+ can be implemented and tested on a scale that is ecologically meaningful because it can contain intact ecosystems, and socially and politically meaningful because it aligns with recognized jurisdictions, such as government-designated provinces, departments or districts. Expanding jurisdictional REDD+ with existing sub-national administrations, within national development policies, could help counter threats in deforestation fronts while addressing issues related to poverty alleviation, land rights and equitable resource governance.

13  |  Living Forests Report: Chapter 5

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover

The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) contains 60 per cent of the forests in the Congo Basin (roughly 150 million ha2), an area of immense biological richness. With only 6 per cent of Congolese having access to electricity, the remainder – nearly 67 million people – depends on the forest for firewood and charcoal. The livelihoods of 40 million people depend directly on forests: for subsistence farming, timber for homes, and firewood/charcoal for cooking and heating. This is leading to increased deforestation. The Maï-Ndombe REDD+ project in DRC has built up the capacities needed to deliver REDD+ and created the first large-scale REDD+ and green development pilot programme in the Congo Basin. The project covers 13 million ha of forest (the size of Austria and Switzerland combined) with high biodiversity and high risks of deforestation due to its proximity to the capital Kinshasa. The project was developed using an integrated approach bringing together government, community, civil society organizations and the private sector at local, sub-national and national levels. It aims to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation of 29Mt CO2 equivalent by 2020, while recognizing tenure security and sharing REDD+ benefits to improve long-term livelihood security, with particular attention on vulnerable groups. At the local level, the project started as a capacity-building exercise to empower

© WWF-US / Julie Pudlowski

Democratic Republic of Congo REDD+ case study indigenous peoples and local communities to participate effectively in the REDD+ process in ways that recognize and address their rights. It plans to address deforestation and degradation through capacity building, payments for environmental services, community forestry, reduced impact logging, creating land-use plans including conservation concessions and strengthening governance. The jurisdictional programme aims to develop “a model provincial green development program that provides alternatives and rewards performance to address the challenges of climate change, poverty reduction, natural resource conservation and protection of biodiversity”. It is an exciting time for REDD+ in DRC. Already, some of the “transformational” impacts set as objectives by the government are beginning to be realized. Communities are working together to develop land-use maps and plans. The government is recognizing their work and their value in the REDD+ process.39 Communities are beginning to demonstrate real commitments to reductions of deforestation and forest degradation, with less slash-and-burn and more sustainable agroforestry. Global policymakers should match DRC’s ambition and commitment. Several forest countries have shown their readiness for REDD+ and will soon outpace the overall process if more aggressive action on REDD+ finance is not taken at the global level. A community land-use mapping exercise as part of the Mai-Ndombe REDD+ project in DRC.

14  |  Living Forests Report: Chapter 5

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover

“Deforestation-free” supply chains

Major private sector actors have pledged to eliminate deforestation from their supply chains and investments.

Examples include the Consumer Goods Forum’s zero net deforestation by 2020 initiative;40 the Banking Environment Initiative to provide deforestation-free financing;41 numerous commitments by individual retailers, brands and traders;42 and place-specific actions such as the Brazilian soy industry’s moratorium on purchasing soy from lands that have been deforested in the Amazon.43 Many producers in the forestry and agriculture sectors have also committed to cease or strictly limit forest conversion associated with their operations.

Governments can create market preferences for products sourced from legal and sustainable sources or support producer countries to take actions to limit forest loss.

Many voluntary commodity certification standards have some form of prohibition on the clearing of forests and other natural ecosystems, though these vary greatly. These include requirements on: maintaining and enhancing high conservation values; legal compliance; protection of peat soils; and respecting local and indigenous peoples’ rights to give or withhold free, prior, and informed consent to activities affecting their territories. If such efforts can be mainstreamed, they offer enormous potential to decouple food and fibre production from forest loss. Yet many private sector actors have not made robust commitments to eliminate deforestation, let alone put such commitments into practice. To transform markets, campaigners and progressive companies will need to work together to expose deforestation-linked practices and their impacts, and make it harder for those implicated to stay in business. At the same time, care is needed to avoid deforestation becoming a singleissue cause divorced from concerns over rights, livelihoods and other environmental issues. Governments need to support the switch to deforestation-free commodities. In producer jurisdictions, they can strengthen laws, policies and governance systems to enable land zoning and permits that are consistent with maintaining forests. In consumer jurisdictions they can create market preferences for products sourced from legal and sustainable sources or support producer countries to take actions to limit forest loss. Governance measures such as the EU Timber Regulation and the Lacey Act in the United States, for example, bar trade in products

containing illegally sourced wood. They are examples of consuming jurisdictions inserting governance safeguards into supply chains that start in other countries. Fair, efficient and effective application of the notion of “deforestationfree” supply chains will require: • Regulations and spatial-planning processes in jurisdictions within deforestation fronts that support voluntary commitments to limit forest conversion; • Verification that builds on existing certification systems, and strengthens their safeguards on the conversion of forests and other natural ecosystems where necessary; • Positioning of deforestation-free as a critical aspect of sustainable production, but not a proxy for, or superior trait to, full sustainability; • Respect for the rights, needs and aspirations of indigenous, traditional and local communities in decisions over land use; • Safeguards to prevent indirect land-use change (e.g., when farmers displaced by deforestation-free commercial developments encroach deeper into the forest); • Complementary measures to ensure that a narrow focus on deforestation does not neglect measures to prevent forest degradation (the source of 50 per cent of forest-related GHG emissions), or create additional pressures on grasslands and other non-forest ecosystems (leakage); • Efficient integration of deforestation-free safeguards with other pre-project processes (e.g., environmental and social impact assessments, high conservation value (HCV) assessments, participatory mapping of community lands); • That companies previously involved in deforestation redress their social and environmental legacies before they qualify as deforestation-free suppliers.

15  |  Living Forests Report: Chapter 5

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover

Forest-friendly infrastructure

We are living in an explosive era of infrastructure expansion,44 and dams, roads, railways, canals, ports, pipelines and mines are potentially a major cause of future forest loss.

Infrastructure projects in remote areas are often magnets for people seeking employment and other economic opportunities. When governance conditions are weak, people who move to such areas in search of work, or remain after temporary jobs conclude, may clear forests to build settlements, secure land, graze livestock or plant crops and gardens. To eke out a living, they may exert further pressure on nearby forests by hunting and gathering wild foods or cutting fuelwood or high-value timber.45 Large mines can signal the presence of valuable ores and minerals and trigger artisanal mining rushes that devastate large tracts of forested land, as is happening in Peru.46 New highways and access roads can make once-remote forests accessible to settlers, and make farming and extractive activities more commercially viable due to easier transport to urban markets or ports. Roads can also fragment intact forests and disrupt wildlife migration. In all such instances, infrastructure is an indirect cause of forest loss. So, what can be done to reduce the impacts of infrastructure on forests without undermining local economic opportunities? Those financing, building or regulating infrastructure can actually do quite a lot to mitigate social and environmental impacts. The starting point is upfront impact assessment. An assessment can cover an individual project, the cumulative impact of a series of projects, or comprise a strategic review of proposed development plans or policies at macro-scale. Whatever the scale, an assessment can inform decisions on whether a proposal goes ahead, how it is managed during implementation, and how it can be integrated into the wider land-use mosaic and spatial plans. Potential negative impacts can be addressed through a sequence of measures known as the “mitigation hierarchy”. In order of priority, these are:

• Avoiding or preventing harm by exploring alternative locations, layouts, technologies, sequencing and timing (e.g., re-routing highways around indigenous reserves, restricting third-party use of project access roads, “fix it first” policies to upgrade existing transport links rather than develop new ones); • Minimizing harm by reducing spatial extent, duration and/or intensity of human interference (e.g., repatriation of migrant workers when construction is complete, creating wildlife crossings under or over major highways); • Restoring or repairing harm that cannot be avoided or prevented (e.g., decommissioning access roads when they are no longer needed, forest restoration after mining operations have finished); • Offsetting residual negative effects through positive interventions (e.g., reintroduction of species or other conservation measures in the wider landscape). Many of these measures will also help investors and project managers to mitigate financial risks, and to some degree are already embedded in best practice safeguards and guidelines.47 However, much can be done to improve the quality of assessments and effective application of mitigation measures. Forest safeguards can be created or greatly strengthened in the regulatory systems governing infrastructure approval, installation and operation in many countries. They can be better addressed in the operational systems of those installing and managing infrastructure. Greater transparency and effective stakeholder consultation, not just “box ticking”, are key areas where improvements are needed.48 The systematic strengthening of forest safeguards in infrastructure regulation and practice is thus one of the major opportunities to prevent further forest loss.

16  |  Living Forests Report: Chapter 5

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover

Optimal land-use choices and landscape approaches The landscape is the scale at which supply chains and investment portfolios from multiple sectors intersect with the specifics of local governance regimes, ecological dynamics and the rights, needs and aspirations of local people. From a conservation perspective, the landscape is often an area large enough to maintain viable populations of key species and healthy ecological processes. It is a scale where sustainable land-use mosaics can be developed, and inclusive processes facilitated to inform and negotiate trade-offs over impacts and benefits of competing land uses. Jurisdictional REDD+ (see page 13) can also be effectively implemented at a landscape level. The “landscape approach”49 is a term used to describe collaborative initiatives in specific places that span multiple sectors and go beyond the scale of individual farms, forest management units and protected areas. Essentially, it means coherent intervention at a landscape scale to secure food, fibre and energy production, improvements in social welfare, water security and ecosystem conservation. Applying a landscape approach to prevent large-scale deforestation is ultimately about encouraging land-use choices that retain forests for multiple purposes and optimize the productive capacity of the surrounding landscape. It can combine official protection of critical sites, voluntary “deforestation-free” measures, sustainable forest management within production forests, REDD+ and other measures to secure payments for environmental services.

A landscape approach should result in smart land-use choices that maintain and enhance ecological values such as biodiversity, ecosystem services and resilience, environmental flows and water quality in rivers, groundwater quality, soil health and stored carbon. In the socioeconomic sphere, it should lead to land-use choices that respect the rights and aspirations of indigenous peoples and local communities and secure local livelihoods and equitable distribution of the benefits of productive activity.

17  |  Living Forests Report: Chapter 5

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover

Ways forward

Earlier chapters in the Living Forests Report have shown that ZNDD is possible without disastrous consequences for supplies of food, energy and wood products, or for biodiversity in other biomes. This chapter casts further light on the scale of the challenge in realizing ZNDD in practice.

WWF is using deforestation fronts to prioritize our efforts to achieve ZNDD in the places where, without conservation efforts, losses will be greatest. Within deforestation fronts, we need location-specific strategies that focus on the most important direct and indirect drivers of forest loss. Such strategies may have to be modified over time as events unfold. Care will be needed to avoid leakage, or the displacement of deforestation from one area to another. Achieving ZNDD certainly won’t be easy. Decisions made in deforestation-front countries and in the domestic and export markets for their products will determine whether tropical forests retreat to a few isolated remnants or continue to play a central role in providing ecosystem services, resources, income and cultural value.

Critical measures to curb the social, economic and environmental harm caused by deforestation fronts are: • Expanding and strengthening networks of indigenous reserves and protected areas, along with governance arrangements to ensure these networks are able to withstand intense deforestation pressures; • Presenting public and private sectors with stronger evidence and valuation of ecosystem services from forests, and risks to business and society of depleting natural capital, so they are more likely to be factored into decisions affecting land use; • Rolling out REDD+, with safeguards, on a far larger scale; • Mainstreaming the concept of “deforestation-free” as a critical element of sustainable supply chains and financing and ensuring it is applied in ways that protect forests while balancing the interests of all stakeholders; • Developing forest-friendly infrastructure that mitigates social and environmental impacts without undermining local economic opportunities; • Using landscape approaches to integrate these elements and enable solutions at an adequate scale to achieve sustainable land-use mosaics and balance trade-offs among competing land uses.

18  |  Living Forests Report: Chapter 5

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover

Deforestation front focus Credit: Adriano Gambarini / WWF-Brazil

Amazon The Amazon is a complex natural region, comprising an array of interdependent ecosystems. It is hugely important in terms of the ecosystem services it provides, including ecological processes, biodiversity and cultural diversity. Since 2005, there has been an important reduction in the rate of deforestation across parts of the Amazon region, but deforestation and forest degradation continue at an alarming rate, threatening to overturn gains that have been made. The Amazon is the biggest deforestation front in the world, according to WWF projections, and interventions are urgently needed to prevent a large-scale, irreversible ecological disaster.

goes ahead on planned hydroelectric dams and major new paved roads – such as the Carretera Marginal de la Selva, running from Peru through Ecuador to Colombia; the Trans-Amazon highway; the ManausPorto Velho “BR 319”; and the CuiabáSantarem “BR 163” – coupled with the new Interoceanic Highway running through Brazil, Bolivia and Peru, deforestation could double to 48 million ha between 2010 and 2030, or 100 million by 2050.53

Forest losses from 2001 to 2012 averaged 1.4 million ha per year50 for the Amazon biome, resulting in a total loss of 17.7 million ha in those 12 years. Brazil was responsible, on average, for 75 per cent of accumulated deforestation, with Brazil, Peru and Bolivia together accounting for 90 per cent.

The Andean-Amazon deforestation area – spanning 670 million ha54 from Colombia to Bolivia – includes sub-fronts moving in from the southeast, Brazil and Bolivia, the Andean piedmont and from the north in Colombia and Ecuador. Deforestation has been growing particularly in the AndeanAmazon countries, namely Peru – due to expansion of palm oil, agriculture, illegal logging and informal mining – parts of Bolivia,55 Colombia and, to a lesser degree, Venezuela, Guyana, Suriname and French Guiana.56 Though the deforestation rate in Brazil has decreased, changes to the Forest Code in 2012 have been associated with increased deforestation, including within the Amazon biome.57

Recent WWF estimates suggest that 27 per cent – more than a quarter – of the Amazon biome will be without trees by 2030, 13 per cent from new deforestation,51 if the average deforestation rate for the last 10 years for each country continues. This would give a total area lost to deforestation from 2010 to 2030 of 23 million ha.52 If construction

Crops and pasture meet natural forest in Mato Grosso in the Brazilian Amazon.

Colombia

Venezuela

Guyana Suriname French Guiana

Forest cover Deforestation fronts

Ecuador Brazil

Peru

Bolivia

19  |  Living Forests Report: Chapter 5

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover

Deforestation front focus Amazon

Amazon deforestation pressures

Brazil Amazon deforestation projections if conservation measures are not introduced (includes deforestation in both Cerrado and Amazon biomes) 202058

25%

2030

31%

59

205060

40%

Pasture and cattle ranching,61 specifically farm gate beef and dairy, is the dominant cause in many areas62 and is also linked to land speculation in some countries. Expansion of mechanized agriculture, particularly for animal feed63 and biofuels,64 using soy,65,66,67,68 oil palm69,70,71 and also corn, is a key cause, with increased production linked to subsidized resettlements in some countries.72 Indirect land-use change can be significant,73 e.g., if soy replacing pasture74 results in cattle rearing moving into natural forest.75 Small-scale agriculture is expanding in regions such as northern and eastern Bolivia,76 Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and the Guianas, where high levels of poverty, pressure for land, unsustainable practices and problems of control are leading to an expansion.

Amazon key data Countries

Brazil, Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador, Colombia, Venezuela, Guyana, Suriname and French Guiana

Area of deforestation front

670 million ha

Deforestation, 2001-2012

17.7 million ha

Deforestation (projected), 2010-2030

23-48 million ha

Top causes

Cattle ranching, agriculture

Dams and hydropower expansion, including settlement around dams and associated infrastructure, is a major driver behind deforestation. The area at risk from deforestation impact occurs between 40 and 100km from hydroelectric dams.77 There are 154 constructed dams, and another 298 either under construction or planned in the Amazon biome.78 Dam impacts often overlap with protected areas and indigenous territories. Roads give access to remote areas, bringing people and land speculation inwards. Mechanisms to manage or reduce the impacts of new roads are often absent or poorly implemented. The fronts showing the greatest deforestation rates are areas with more roads, showing a strong correlation between deforestation and the presence of roads and projections of new roads. Nearly 95 per cent of deforestation in Brazil Amazon was found to be within 5.5km of roads and 1km of navigable rivers.79 Forest fires due to poorly controlled burning for land clearance and management are a contributing factor to both deforestation and forest degradation.80

50

area of deforestation (million ha)

40 30

48 million ha 23 million ha

Unsustainable legal and illegal timber trade contributes to forest degradation and can be the first stage of forest conversion 83

20 10 0

If current trend continues

Road development accompanies mines, oil and gas drilling, often deepening deforestation. Mining is significant in places81 such as Peru, where artisanal and small-scale alluvial gold mining has increased 400 per cent since 1999.82

If current trend continues + new roads + additional pressures

■ Primary cause of forest loss and/or severe degradation

■ Important secondary

cause of forest loss and/ or severe degradation

■ Less important cause of

forest loss and/or severe degradation

20  |  Living Forests Report: Chapter 5

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover

© Michel Gunther / WWF-Canon

Deforestation front focus Atlantic Forest/gran chaco The Atlantic Forest is one of the richest rainforests in the world, with high levels of endemism and richer biodiversity per area than the Amazon.84 However, the region also hosts 75 per cent of the Brazilian human population and remaining forest fragments are under intense pressure. The neighbouring Gran Chaco is the largest dry forest in South America, covering some 100 million ha in Argentina (62 per cent), Paraguay (25 per cent), Bolivia (12 per cent) and Brazil (1 per cent).85 But unless policies change, both ecosystems could virtually disappear outside protected areas. Ironically, Gran Chaco has suffered partly as a result of tighter controls to protect remaining fragments of Atlantic Forest – a classic example of “leakage” and the reason WWF has combined these two distinct ecosystems as a single deforestation front. In the Gran Chaco biome in particular, deforestation rates are exceptionally high. A recent study of deforestation dynamics in the biome found that 11.7 million ha (7.9 million ha in Argentina, 3.3 million ha in Paraguay, and 0.5 million ha in Bolivia) were converted between 1976 and 2011. The study concluded that 23 per cent of the Gran Chaco biome had been lost in Argentina, 19 per cent in Paraguay and 3.5 per cent in Bolivia. 86 The Atlantic Forest is now confined to only 11.7 per cent (16.3 million ha) of its original

extent in Brazil, 24.9 per cent (1.2 million ha) in Paraguay,87 and 38.7 per cent (1 million ha) in northern Argentina.88 This is mainly due to agricultural expansion during the colonial period, industrialization and urban development. Although 9 per cent of the region’s territories are covered by protected areas, over two-thirds are under sustainable use, which usually means farmland and does not necessarily protect forest. Just 2.5 per cent (3.3 million ha) is in national parks where use is more restricted, including 700 mainly small strictly protected areas89 (1.6 per cent). Atlantic Forest continues to be converted. In Brazil, losses over the previous few years have been around 20,000 ha per year, and WWF projects losses to 2030 could be around 425,105 ha. In Argentina, deforestation rates in the biome averaged 5,485 ha a year from 2006 to 2011.

Deforestation of the Atlantic Forest for cattle grazing. Bahía, Brazil.

Based on current and recent rates of forest loss, WWF estimates deforestation to equal 10 million ha between 2010 and 2030 for the Atlantic Forest and Gran Chaco. Solutions to address deforestation will require interventions at the regional level; tackling one deforestation issue without considering the wider regional and global context can simply result in the problem being shifted somewhere else. Restoration efforts are also under way, at least in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. In 2009, these were integrated into the Atlantic Forest Restoration Pact, when more than 160 institutions – including WWF, the government and universities – set a target to restore 15 million ha of degraded lands

by 2050; 60,000 ha are already under restoration in more than 80 projects covering several states. The Brazilian government also created a Rural Environmental Registration* requirement for rural properties that encourages restoration in compliance with the National Forest Code.

*Rural Environmental Registry is an online system through which rural property owners must register their land. CAR is a federal system, but states are responsible for implementation. CAR is configured to use high-resolution satellite images that are then registered by the property owner and contain all of the relevant information for compliance with the law, including the location of Areas of Permanent Protection and Legal Reserves.

21  |  Living Forests Report: Chapter 5

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover

Deforestation front focus Atlantic Forest/gran chaco Atlantic Forest/Gran Chaco key data Countries

Argentina, Bolivia (for Chaco), Brazil and Paraguay

Deforestation (projected), 2010-2030

10 million ha

Top causes

Agriculture, livestock, infrastructure

Atlantic Forest/Gran Chaco deforestation pressures Agricultural expansion, particularly for soy90 but also maize, sunflower, wheat, rice and oats is the main driver of deforestation in Argentina and Paraguay.91,92 Resistance to forest clearing has sometimes been violently suppressed, including suppression of land protests related to soy.93 Clearance for pasture, including overgrazing, causes further impacts on forest cover.94

Roads and pipelines95 threaten to increase forest loss.

Fire and a consequent increase in invasive species96 is a key contributor.

Bolivia

Brazil

Firewood collection and charcoal production are sources of both forest clearance and degradation, particularly in Gran Chaco.97

Logging, including illegal operations, continues in both regions.98 Paraguay

Pulpwood plantations continue to be linked to conversion in the west Argentinean Chaco.99

Mining is increasing, for example in the Bolivian Chaco.100

Argentina

Proposed dams and associated infrastructure are a potential cause of future forest loss.

■ Primary cause of forest Forest cover

Deforestation fronts

loss and/or severe degradation

■ Important secondary

cause of forest loss and/ or severe degradation

■ Less important cause of

forest loss and/or severe degradation

22  |  Living Forests Report: Chapter 5

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover

Deforestation front focus © Alain Compost / WWF-Canon

BORNEO A century ago, most of Borneo was covered in forest. The island has since undergone a massive transformation as coastal lowland forests have been cleared, converted to other land uses or degraded. The rate of deforestation and degradation has accelerated, with 30 per cent of Borneo’s forests lost in the last four decades. Twenty million ha were lost between 1985 and 1997.101 Deforestation has continued since 2000,102 particularly in Central Kalimantan,103 West Kalimantan and Sarawak.104 Between 2003 and 2008, a further 5.8 million ha were deforested105 in Borneo as a whole. By 2010, 53 per cent of the island’s original forest remained, of which about half was thought to be “intact,” some 21 million ha; 42 per cent of this intact forest is slated to be logged and 16 per cent further converted into timber plantations.106,107

Industrial conversion of forests into palm oil, timber and pulpwood plantations is the main cause of deforestation. Other pressures include conversion for small-scale agriculture, fires, illegal logging, and new roads and dams. In Indonesia, in particular, these pressures are exacerbated by weak governance. Permits purporting to allow land conversion are often in conflict with sectoral regulations, spatial plans, community land claims and permits granted in other sectors. If current deforestation rates continue unabated, 21.5 million ha will be lost between 2007 and 2020, reducing remaining forest cover to just 24 per cent of the island.112 Recent private sector commitments to halt deforestation and government policy

Cleaning forest fire for palm oil plantation Central Kalimantan, Indonesia.

changes suggest a slowdown in these rates is probable. For example, through the “Heart of Borneo” declaration, the governments of Brunei Darussalam, Indonesia and Malaysia have committed to manage and conserve forest resources in the inland portion of the island where most forest cover is retained.113 Proposed measures to back this declaration could reduce deforestation rates significantly. Accordingly, WWF projects forest loss of 22 million hectares for the period 2010 to 2030 in Borneo.

© Alain Compost / WWF-Canon

A recent analysis for one area of West Kalimantan projecting business-as-usual scenarios found that by 2030, the area of forest likely to be cleared for oil palm would reduce the remaining natural forest cover to 4 per cent.108 Other projections suggest that 45 per cent of Kalimantan peat swamp forest in Indonesia could be lost by 2030;109 in Malaysian Borneo, most new plantations are expected in Sarawak.110 Although the Indonesian government has decreed111

that Indonesia’s Kalimantan provinces should remain 45 per cent forested, this is not reflected in district and provincial development plans, nor in the numerous, often overlapping permits granted for mining and agriculture.

Burning palm-oil plantation. Palangkaraya, Central Kalimantan, Indonesia.

23  |  Living Forests Report: Chapter 5

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover

Deforestation front focus BORNEO

Borneo deforestation pressures

Borneo key data Countries

Indonesia (Kalimantan), Malaysia (Sabah, Sarawak) and Brunei

Deforestation, 2003-2008

5.8 million ha

Deforestation (projected), 2010-2030:

22 million ha

Top causes

Conversion for palm oil, unsustainable logging

Uncontrolled small-scale conversion is also a significant pressure, including within some protected forests.121

Brunei Malaysia

Indonesia

Forest cover

of forest loss and/or severe degradation

Repeated cycles of unsustainable, often illegal, logging result in severe forest degradation, 122 and forests that have been logged over and abandoned are vulnerable to encroachment and conversion to other land uses.123 Indonesia’s two biggest paper players have pledged near zero deforestation;124,125 however, third parties continue to clear forests set aside for conservation in the concessions of these companies, and their suppliers continue to clear forests not designated for protection due to flawed conservation and social value assessments.126,127 The future impacts of the sector on Borneo’s forests remain uncertain due to the gap between plantation wood supply and planned milling capacity, and government plans in Indonesia to allocate more forested land for pulpwood plantation development. Fire is used to clear land, but often spreads to burn out of control on drained, or temporarily dry, peatlands128 – around 1 million ha were drained for Indonesia’s failed mega rice project and large areas have been drained for plantations. Also at risk are forests made drier and more flammable due to El Niño events or because of large canopy gaps resulting from poor logging practices and encroachment. Fire impacts have been greatest in West Kalimantan, Central Kalimantan and Sabah, and burnt tracts of forest are often not given the opportunity to recover.129 Mining, for coal, gold and other minerals, is significant in some areas and, if economic development plans are realized, is set to be a very important direct or indirect cause of forest loss in some parts of the island. Large mining companies are at least willing to “minimize” the environmental impacts of their mining activities, while small-scale mining appears to be completely ignorant about this.

Deforestation fronts

Dam building is increasing, including on the territories of indigenous peoples.130

Table symbols

Primary cause

Conversion for palm oil plantations is the largest cause of deforestation across all regions of Borneo.114,115,116 Palm oil plantations cover 11.7 million ha in the Indonesian part of Borneo alone,117 with significant increases in the last decade.118 The profits from logging and conversion to palm oil plantation greatly exceed foreseeable revenues from carbon markets and other payment for ecosystem services (PES) schemes,119 creating additional challenges for forest conservation. Most new plantations are expected to be in Sarawak.120

Important

secondary cause of forest loss and/or severe degradation

Less important

cause of forest loss and/or severe degradation

Road development is an important contributory cause, with 95 per cent of deforestation in Borneo occurring within 5km of the forest edge.131 Malaysian Borneo contains 364,000km of roads in forests.132 New roads make previously remote forest areas accessible to settlers, illegal logging and land claims.

24  |  Living Forests Report: Chapter 5

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover

Deforestation front focus © Zig Koch / WWF

CERRADO The richest savannah in the world, the Cerrado high plateau of Brazil and Bolivia is not nearly as recognized as the Amazon, but it is under just as much threat. The rate of vegetation conversion in the Cerrado far exceeds that of the Amazon, with native habitats and rich biodiversity being destroyed faster than the neighbouring rainforest. The Cerrado encompasses the area west of the Brazilian Highlands to Santa Cruz, Bolivia. The Brazilian portion originally covered 200 million ha,133 but half of it has already been converted to agriculture.134 The remainder is severely fragmented,135 with few contiguous areas over 1,000 ha.136 In the Bolivian portion, deforestation statistics specific to the Cerrado biome are not readily available. However, studies on Eastern Bolivia highlight significant recent deforestation correlated with suitability of land for mechanized agriculture, including proximity to roads and markets.137 In Brazil, between 2002 and 2010, almost 10 million ha – 4.9 per cent of the original Cerrado area138 – were cleared. If the current rate of loss continues, WWF estimates that much of the Cerrado’s natural savannah,

woodland and forest outside protected areas, totalling 15 million ha, will disappear by 2030.139,140 The Brazilian government is reported to have policies that 35 per cent of the forest should remain as permanent forest estate141 but even if the government’s aim for retaining natural ecosystems is achieved, an additional 11.2 million ha of the Cerrado will be converted over the next few years. The Cerrado has fewer protected areas than other Brazilian ecosystems – 8.9 per cent in total with just 2.9 per cent under strict protection. Landowners are, by law, supposed to keep 20-35 per cent of land under native vegetation (including as legal reserves), depending on location.142 But these laws are not rigorously enforced.143

Aerial view of Cerrado savannah, Juruena National Park, Brazil.

25  |  Living Forests Report: Chapter 5

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover

Deforestation front focus CERRADO

Cerrado deforestation pressures Cattle ranching144 is one of the main causes of conversion, totaling 60 million ha to date.

Cerrado key data Countries

Brazil, Bolivia

Ratio of protected areas

8.9% (2.9% under strict protection)

Deforestation (projected), 2010-2030

15 million ha

Top causes

Conversion to soy plantations, cattle ranching

Brazil

Conversion of forest to soy plantations for food, animal feed and biofuels145 – totalling 12-14 million ha146 – has now overtaken cattle ranching as the primary cause of forest loss.147 Brazil is the world’s second largest producer of soybean, and with half of it coming from the Cerrado, it is now probably the main cause of conversion.148 Sugar and grain production are contributing causes. WWF’s research suggests that the root cause of agricultural expansion into the Brazilian Cerrado was a need for foreign exchange, related to a balance-of-payment deficit and the debt crisis. This was exacerbated by a high international price for soybean, political influence of large landowners and the transfer of the national capital to Brasilia, which brought pressure to develop the region.149 This led to a range of pressures, including road building from the 1950s onwards,150 development policies focused on agricultural expansion and the growing market for soy.151 Dams and hydropower expansion, including settlement around dams and associated infrastructure, is linked to forest loss. Road development and in-migration associated with mining is a cause of deforestation in some areas.

Bolivia

Degradation is caused by cutting trees for fuelwood and charcoal, mostly for industrial uses.152 Paraguay

■ Primary cause of forest Forest cover

Deforestation fronts

loss and/or severe degradation

■ Important secondary

cause of forest loss and/ or severe degradation

■ Less important cause of

forest loss and/or severe degradation

26  |  Living Forests Report: Chapter 5

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover

© Pablo Corral / WWF

Deforestation front focus Chocó-Darién The tropical rainforests of the Chocó-Darién run along South America’s northwestern Pacific coast from northwestern Ecuador through Colombia, connecting to eastern Panama. These are among the most biologically diverse regions in the world, boasting more than 8,000 plant species, close to 600 bird species and the highest rainfall levels on Earth. The Chocó-Darién extends over 16.9 million ha, with forest cover maintained in about two-thirds of the region (12.5 million ha remains under forest cover). Scenario-based analyses demonstrate that forest loss over the next 30-40 years could reach more than 3 million ha based on current pressures, with more optimistic scenarios estimating potential loss of just over 1.5 million ha.153 This corresponds to 18 per cent and 9 per cent of the ecoregion, respectively, potentially leaving less than half of the ecoregion under forest cover. Agriculture, roads and electricity grid infrastructure (power lines), mining and oil exploration are the largest drivers of the projected forest loss.154

is occurring in the Pacific lowlands, and is associated with mining, infrastructure development and agricultural expansion.158,159 At the national level, the colonization frontline in Colombia was advancing at around 0.84km/year160 and from 2002 to 2007, 91,756 ha was lost in national parks.161 In Panama, the deforestation from 1992 to 2008 was 881,226 ha. In some cases in the Darien and Panama provinces (the regions with the highest land use dynamics162), forests were replaced by teak plantations.163 Some areas remain relatively pristine and protected areas provide some protection,164 but the situation is changing due partly to pressures from mining and growing interest in agro-industry development.

Deforestation in the Ecuadorian Chocó has been most significant while forest clearance is now gathering pace in Panama and Colombia. Ecuador has lost most original forest155 and, following intense clearing,156 has just 2 per cent of its coastal forest remaining.157 In Colombia, deforestation

Based on current and recent loss, WWF estimates deforestation will be 3 million ha in the Chocó-Darién as a whole by 2030. Projections in Colombia are that by 2030, national deforestation will equal 3.4 million ha165 including in biodiversity hotspots in Quibdó-Tribugá and Patía-Mira regions.166 Indigenous communities like this Awa man depend on the forests of Chocó-Darién for their livelihoods, but are threatened by development of infrastructure and extractive industries.

27  |  Living Forests Report: Chapter 5

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover

Deforestation front focus Chocó-Darién

Chocó-Darién deforestation pressures

Chocó-Darién key data Countries

Colombia, Ecuador and Panama

Deforestation (projected), 2010-2030

3 million ha

Top causes

Mining, infrastructure, agriculture

Agriculture, including coca production,167 and colonization is estimated to cause 90 per cent of deforestation in Ecuador and Colombia and is a major cause of forest loss in Panama.

Expansion of cattle ranching is a significant cause. Mining is a contributor to deforestation, particularly in Colombia168 and Ecuador;169 there were 564 mining contracts awarded in Colombia from 1990 to 2011; 1,092 in Ecuador (19922011), including 140 active affecting over 100,000 ha; and 42 in Panama. Colombia also has 20 oil blocks over 12.2 million ha, including 17 in reserved areas.170

Panama

Timber demand often fuels unsustainable logging.171 Colombia

Analysis in the Ecuadorian Chocó found that population density, costs of travelling and distance to rivers are significantly related to forest loss.172,173 Road construction and proximity to roads was found to be the largest single factor in deforestation.174 Colombia has 18 road projects in the region, Ecuador has 9 and Panama is planning a major connecting road.175

Other

Population growth, land scarcity and poverty are all critical underlying causes,176 coupled with armed conflict and narcotic production.177

■ Primary cause of forest loss and/or severe degradation

■ Important secondary

cause of forest loss and/ or severe degradation

■ Less important cause of

forest loss and/or severe degradation

Ecuador

Forest cover

Deforestation fronts

28  |  Living Forests Report: Chapter 5

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover

© Frederick J. Weyerhaeuser / WWF-Canon

Deforestation front focus Congo Basin The Congo Basin* contains 20 per cent of the world’s tropical forests178 – some 301 million ha179 – and makes up one of the most important wilderness areas left on Earth. A mosaic of rivers, forests, savannahs, swamps and flooded forests, the Congo Basin forests span six countries – Cameroon, Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea and Gabon – and are home to species such as mountain and lowland gorillas, bonobos, okapis, chimpanzees and elephants. Change is coming to the Congo Basin, but sporadically, influenced by politics and economics in individual countries. In this region, deforestation is less a front than many individual incursions, and has proceeded more slowly than in other fronts. Losses were estimated as 0.19 per cent from 1990 to 2000, and 0.14 per cent from 2000 to 2010, with forest decreasing everywhere.180 Deforestation rates are thus historically low, but some estimates show degradation is an increasing problem and is generally under-reported.181,182 DRC has the highest deforestation, 6-7 million ha since 2000,183 followed by Cameroon184 and Equatorial Guinea.185

retreating to a core and contiguous forest fragmenting into three areas: one between Gabon, Cameroon and the Republic of Congo, and one each in eastern and western DRC. However, volatile politics and nervous investors make future projections difficult. A series of national and regional conflicts have resulted in many refugees,187 which can increase or decrease overall rates of forest loss. Moreover, population in Congo Basin countries is expected to double between 2000 and 2030, leading to 170 million people concentrated mainly in urban areas (70 per cent of the population in Gabon and Congo are urban-dwellers), making forests close to large cities particularly at threat.188

Drawing on published analysis,186 WWF estimates that a minimum of 12 million ha are likely to be lost by 2030, with forests

* “Congo Basin” is used not as a hydrological definition but to describe the lowland dense humid forests of Central Africa.

African forest elephant; Dzanga-Sangha Special Reserve, Central African Republic

Cameroon

Equatorial Guinea Gabon

Forest cover

Central African Republic

Republic of Congo

Democratic Republic of Congo

Deforestation fronts

29  |  Living Forests Report: Chapter 5

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover

Deforestation front focus Congo Basin Congo Basin key data

Congo Basin deforestation pressures This is the leading cause of deforestation in the region, caused mainly by shifting cultivation; some of the forest returns during fallow periods make overall deforestation estimates hard to calculate.189

Countries

Cameroon, Central African Republic, DRC, Republic of Congo, Gabon

Fuelwood comprises an estimated 90 per cent of timber harvest190 in the Congo Basin.

Countries with most deforestation

DRC, Cameroon, Equatorial Guinea

Deforestation (projected), 2010-2030

12 million ha

Top causes

Small-scale agriculture, fuelwood

Large agricultural plantation development is likely to become more important, including for palm oil; 1.6 million ha of projects have been announced since 2009,191 with four companies currently trying to secure 180,000 ha for palm oil in southern Cameroon192 and large projects planned in DRC, including a Chinese company (ZTE) seeking 1 million ha for oil palm development.193 Rubber and soy are also gaining importance.

© Michel Gunther / WWF

Much of the timber industry is inefficient194 and some probably unsustainable.195 Illegal logging is suspected to be widespread,196 accounting for up to half the timber extraction, mainly going to China197 but some to the EU despite the existence of controls.198 If the region experiences significant economic growth, the domestic market could also put pressure onto forest resources. Large-scale mining, mainly by Chinese and Australian companies,199 and artisanal mining200 are both important. The latter is often in protected areas.201 Mining permits sometimes overlap with conservation areas. 202 For example, over 120 exploration permits have been issued in Cameroon in the last two years203 with overlapping conservation and mining permits,204 and the nature of operations in DRC has also caused concern.205 Population increase and infrastructure development are important secondary causes of deforestation. Rising population is leading to expansion of urban areas, and threatening forests close to large cities and in other development areas. Realization of currently planned and funded transport infrastructure in the region is projected to increase deforestation by up to three times.206 Cattle may become more significant if the climate becomes drier as projected, although ranching is currently constrained by tsetse fly.

View of Minkébé Forest, Gabon

■ Primary cause of forest loss and/or severe degradation

■ Important secondary

cause of forest loss and/ or severe degradation

■ Less important cause of

forest loss and/or severe degradation

30  |  Living Forests Report: Chapter 5

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover

John Kabubu / WWF-Coastal East Africa

Deforestation front focus East Africa Eastern Africa has a diversity of forest types – vast open miombo woodlands, remnant coastal forests and unique mountain forest in the Eastern Arc. The deforestation threat extends to all forest types. Remote sensing analysis found forest losses from 2000 to 2012 were concentrated in Mozambique (2,155,200 ha), Tanzania (1,990,300 ha) and Zambia (1,316,300 ha),207 although precise figures are hard to calculate in this region.208 Underlying drivers were population growth,209 poverty,210 perverse economic incentives,211 weak institutions, environmental degradation212 and climate change. 213 The inland miombo woodlands are located mainly in the Zambesian Regional Centre of endemism with 8,500 floral species – 54 per cent of which are endemic – and no less than 20 biodiversity hotspots. It currently covers 380 million ha and is the dominant forest type of the region.214,215 The miombo is home to more than 40 national parks, with protected areas covering 22 per cent of the region. When effective, these are vital in reducing the rate of deforestation. However, a combination of deforestation, release of soil carbon216 and climate change could create a “tipping point” of degradation for miombo.217 The coastal forests of Tanzania and Kenya have been reduced to 10 per cent of their original area;218 the whole biome is now thought to cover 625,000 ha – 58,700 ha in Kenya, 62,900 ha in Tanzania and 477,800 ha

in Mozambique.219 Protected areas exist but demonstrate varying levels of effectiveness.220 The Eastern Arc forests have also undergone major conversion, with Tanzania losing close to 80 per cent;221 current total estimates are that little more than 500,000 ha remain.222 In addition to outright land conversion, the region’s forests are under pressure from overharvesting for timber and fuelwood. Much of the logging is illegal – whether for precious timber destined for Asian markets223 or to make charcoal for local use.224 Overharvesting by licensed operators is also a problem due to poor enforcement of regulations. Across Africa, oil, gas and mining projects are driving investment in new and improved infrastructure. “Development corridors” are intended to leverage this to spur local development through small to medium enterprises in industries such as agribusiness and tourism.225 Forests within these development corridors are vulnerable to loss or severe degradation through conversion to agriculture or colonization by settlers seeking employment and other economic opportunities. The East African deforestation front thus extends inland from the coast into miombo woodlands along the following development corridors:

A forest cleared for farming and charcoal production in Rufiji, Tanzania

• Mtwara (Malawi, Mozambique, Tanzania, Zambia) • Nacala (Malawi, Mozambique, Zambia) • Beira (Mozambique, Zimbabwe) • Limpopo (Mozambique, Zimbabwe). Zambia and northwest Zimbabwe are in the centre of the miombo, but have road and rail connectivity to the west and east coasts. Zambia plans to leverage its central location to become the region’s logistical hub for freight (e.g. through the ChipataMchinji railway link to the Nacala corridor). Zimbabwe is also experiencing rapid growth in transport links (e.g. Victoria Falls and Kariba airports), settlement and other infrastructure (e.g. hydropower in the Batoka gorge). Transportation infrastructure is

likely to compound the levels of deforestation in the miombo woodlands of both countries through increased accessibility, new settlements, conversion to agricultural land and related edge effects in forested areas. WWF projects potential forest loss in the East Africa region of up to 12 million ha between 2010 and 2030, which is echoed by other researchers,226 but impacts will vary by country and forest type. Projections are based on continuation of recent trends in coastal areas, particularly in Mozambique, and accelerated rates of loss further inland, associated with infrastructure and development corridors extending into miombo woodlands.

31  |  Living Forests Report: Chapter 5

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover

Deforestation front focus East Africa East Africa key data Countries

Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique, Tanzania, Zambia, Zimbabwe

Dominant forest type

Miombo (380 million ha)

Deforestation, 200o-2012

Around 6 million ha

Deforestation (projected), 2010-2030

12 million ha

Countries with most deforestation

Mozambique, Tanzania, Zambia

Top causes

Crop and livestock expansion

East Africa deforestation pressures In development corridors and areas of high population density, small-scale agriculture and in-migration are a major cause of deforestation.227,228,229 Out-grower schemes for cotton, tobacco230 and other cash crops are creating and expanding farming blocks in Zambia and Zimbabwe. Livestock expansion is a leading cause of deforestation.231 Uncontrolled fires have been identified by stakeholders as a major issue in the miombo,232 with larger, more intense fires associated with human activity.

Charcoal use is increasing,233 most commonly near roads234 and cities.235 Much of it involves illegal logging.236

Unsustainable commercial logging, often illegal, is causing severe degradation to forests in the region.237

Kenya

Tanzania Malawi

Infrastructure development is significant, including new roads, rail links and dams, some of which are funded by China.238 Large-scale mining and related infrastructure development as well as inmigration are increasing and contributing significantly to deforestation,239 for example the mining projects at Lumwana and Kalumbila by Barrick Gold and First Quantum in northwest Zambia.

Zambia

Zimbabwe

Mozambique

A growth in plantation and biofuel crops, as well as pulp240 and bioenergy241 plantations, is also occurring.

■ Primary cause of forest loss and/or severe degradation

Forest cover

■ Important secondary

cause of forest loss and/or severe degradation

■ Less important cause of

forest loss and/or severe degradation

Deforestation fronts

32  |  Living Forests Report: Chapter 5

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover

Deforestation front focus Eastern Australia Australia is the only place on Earth where all three major divisions of mammals are present: the egglaying monotremes (platypus and echidna); the marsupials; and the placental mammals. At least 130,000 species of native animals and plants, nearly 8 per cent of all life on Earth, are found in Australia.242

The forests and woodlands of eastern Australia comprise the six WWF terrestrial ecoregions within the Australian states of New South Wales (NSW) and Queensland: Queensland tropical rain forests, Eastern Australia temperate forests, Brigalow tropical savannah, Eastern Australia mulga shrublands, Southeast Australia temperate forests and Southeast Australia temperate savannahs (see map). At least 10 per cent of native Australian terrestrial species are endemic to this region, and 24 per cent have the majority of known records in this region.244 One of the symbols of Australia, the koala, although not confined to this front, was

recently listed vulnerable to extinction due to deforestation in Queensland and NSW and consequent fragmentation.245 Two of the ecoregions, Queensland tropical rainforests and Eastern Australian temperate forests, comprise the Forests of Eastern Australia global biodiversity hotspot.246 About 70 per cent of this hotspot is cleared or disturbed and only 18 per cent protected. Deforestation in the northern ecoregions247 is a substantial contributor of sediment pollution affecting the Great Barrier Reef. Soil surface rainfall runoff is shown to increase between 40 and 100 per cent due to deforestation in this area.248 Beyond the shortterm effect of deforestation on soil erosion, using the cleared land for livestock and crops means a continual flow of sediment, nutrient and agri-chemical pollution to the Reef.249 Until the enactment of new laws in NSW and Queensland in 2005, land clearing was rampant. At its peak in Queensland in 1999, nearly half a million hectares were cleared per

Despite a major reduction in deforestation rates in Australia due to such laws, recent and projected weakening of key legislation in the frontline states of Queensland and NSW threatens a resurgence in deforestation. Queensland saw a pronounced fall in clearing rates following a ban in 2006 on large-scale deforestation for agriculture, but a change in laws has led to a resurgence of clearing, both legal and newly legalized. There’s no reliable information yet as to whether there was a shift back toward clearing of primary forest. However, WWF expects such a shift to occur because the 2006 ban on large-scale clearing of primary forests was partly removed in 2013. In NSW, rates of deforestation are much lower than in Queensland, around 50100,000 ha per annum, including both primary and secondary forest. Large-scale deforestation for agriculture was heavily restricted in 2005. Although new approvals have contracted dramatically, actual deforestation has been slow to respond due to exemptions and ongoing clearing under earlier approvals.251 Of immediate concern in NSW is that what gains have been made are under threat of being lost due to a current proposal to repeal the deforestation laws and replace them with weaker substitutes.252

Deforestation across the entire front ranges from over 3 million ha of all forests lost from 2010 to 2030 to 3 million ha of primary forests in addition to over 3 million ha of secondary forests cleared by 2030. These projections depend on whether Queensland and NSW decide to change their land clearing laws. WWF conservatively has not included, in clearing of secondary forests, any reclearing of forests cleared within the same time period. Permanent offsets for reforestation were also excluded where known (NSW only). © Global Warming Images / WWF-Canon

Of the 1,250 plant and 390 animal species listed as threatened by the Australian government (excluding extinct and marine species), 964 plant species (77 per cent) and 286 animal species (73 per cent) have deforestation and resulting fragmentation or degradation of their habitats listed as threats.243

year. In 1990, emissions from deforestation were 25 per cent of Australia’s total greenhouse gas emissions. By 2012 this had sunk to 6 per cent, although total emissions remained much the same.250

The Cathedral Fig Tree, a massive green fig tree (Ficus virens) in the Daintree Rainforest on the Atherton Tablelands, Queensland, Australia.

33  |  Living Forests Report: Chapter 5

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover

Deforestation front focus Eastern Australia

Eastern Australia deforestation pressures

Theo Allofs / Getty Images

Pasture creation for livestock is the dominant driver, accounting for 88 per cent of clearing of both primary and secondary forests and woodlands. In Queensland, mature mulga forest is bulldozed to feed stock directly on the foliage, while opening up land for pasture. This exemption continued despite the 2006 ban on broadscale clearing in that state. Forestry and conversion to plantations is a significant driver in New South Wales Eastern Temperate Forests, but relatively minor in Queensland. Cropping is a relatively minor component but dominates in some key areas, and is greater in NSW than in Queensland. Mining is a minor component overall, but open cut coal mines are significant in some portions of the central Brigalow Savannah and in the Eastern Temperate Forests.

Koalas were recently listed vulnerable to extinction due to deforestation.

■ Primary cause of forest loss and/or severe degradation

■ Important secondary

cause of forest loss and/ or severe degradation

■ Less important cause of

forest loss and/or severe degradation

Eastern Australia key data Queensland

New South Wales

Forest cover

Deforestation fronts

States

New South Wales (NSW), Queensland

Type of forests most at risk

Sub-humid eucalypt and acacia forests and woodlands

Key species affected

Tree-dependent birds, koalas, possums and gliders

Deforestation (projected), 20102030

3-6 million ha

Main driver

Pasture for livestock

Primary Qld

Primary NSW

Secondary Qld

Secondary NSW

Low estimate High estimate

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Estimated areas likely to be cleared 2010-2030 (million hectares)

34  |  Living Forests Report: Chapter 5

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover

© WWF-Cambodia

Deforestation front focus Greater Mekong Tigers, elephants, saolas, Mekong Irrawaddy dolphins, and thousands of other lesser-known but equally threatened species form a complex web of life in the Greater Mekong. The region encompasses the countries of Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar, Thailand and Vietnam. The economies in the region are booming, but with this comes the complex task of balancing legitimate needs for development while safeguarding forest ecosystems and ecosystem services. Before the 1970s, most of the Greater Mekong was highly forested. However, today most of the region’s natural forests have been reduced, severely fragmented or degraded,253,254 including from the impacts of wars.255 Only about half of the Greater Mekong land area is currently forested, with only 13 per cent of primary forests remaining.256 This, alongside poaching and wildlife trade, is creating a biodiversity crisis.257 Primary forest has virtually disappeared in Vietnam, is extremely low in Cambodia, and scarce in Lao PDR, Myanmar and Thailand.258 Natural regeneration259 and plantation

establishment in China260 and Vietnam261 has recovered some area under trees, but not natural forest. Between 1973 and 2009 forests in the Greater Mekong declined by almost a third: 43 per cent in Vietnam and Thailand; 24 per cent in Lao PDR and Myanmar; and 22 per cent in Cambodia. Intact forest area was reduced from 70 to 20 per cent of the region,262 leaving around 98 million ha of forest.263 Mangroves have been severely affected,264 partly by wartime defoliants,265 with the Lower Mekong countries losing an estimated 222,650 ha between 1980 and

2005. Illegal logging, including in protected areas, is a major problem in Cambodia,266 Myanmar267 and Lao PDR,268 but prevalent throughout the region.269

Rubber plantation after deforestation, Eastern Plain Landscape, Cambodia

WWF projects further losses of 15-30 million ha by 2030, with only 14 per cent of remaining forest consisting of core, intact areas.270 Losses are likely to remain highest in Cambodia, Lao PDR and Myanmar, where 2010-2020 deforestation is projected at 4.8 million ha.271 A critical cause amplifying deforestation pressures is weak governance, anarchic development and economic dependence on natural resources.272

35  |  Living Forests Report: Chapter 5

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover

Deforestation front focus Greater Mekong

Greater Mekong deforestation pressures Conversion of forest for crop plantations and agriculture, namely sugar, rice, rubber273 and biofuels274, is a key cause of deforestation in the region. In Myanmar alone, over 2 million ha of forest have been allocated to agriculture;275 between 2011 and 2013, 1.15 million ha of primary forest was cleared each year for timber production and conversion to agriculture.276

Greater Mekong key data Countries

Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar, Thailand, Vietnam

Countries with highest deforestation currently

Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar

Deforestation, 1973-2009 (excluding China)

49 million ha

Deforestation (projected), 2010-2030

15-30 million ha

Top causes

Crop plantations, agriculture, unsustainable and illegal logging

Rapid development of roads and infrastructure leads to new settlements that encroach on forest for small-scale agriculture development. Legal and policy restrictions on logging in Vietnam, China and Thailand, coupled with growing demand,277 are driving unsustainable278 and illegal279 logging for export and indirect land-use change in Cambodia, Lao PDR and Myanmar.280 Illegal logging, including within protected areas, is prevalent throughout the region.281 Establishment of tree plantations (acacia, eucalyptus), many of which are still small scale,282 is a growing threat, particularly in Vietnam and Lao PDR, where it is supported by government incentives.

Lao PDR

Fast economic growth in the Mekong region is translated on the ground into rapid and often anarchic development of roads and infrastructure.

Myanmar

Dam development has a relatively small impact on total forest cover, but can be an important factor in fragmentation and loss of connectivity,283 and is a factor in forest loss in Thailand.284

Thailand

Wood energy and charcoal consumption is stable and even growing in some countries, accelerating forest degradation. Cambodia Vietnam

Other

Mangroves are replaced with shrimp farms and rice production.

■ Primary cause of forest Forest cover

Deforestation fronts

loss and/or severe degradation

■ Important secondary

cause of forest loss and/ or severe degradation

■ Less important cause of

forest loss and/or severe degradation

36  |  Living Forests Report: Chapter 5

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover

© Brent Stirton / Getty Images

Deforestation front focus New Guinea New Guinea and the islands around it span two countries. The eastern portion comprises the country of Papua New Guinea (PNG), while the western part forms the Indonesian provinces of Papua and West Papua. A treasure trove of biological and cultural diversity, New Guinea and its neighbouring islands are home to the largest remaining tracts of tropical forest in the Asia-Pacific region and more than one in six of the world’s language groups. Land use is shaped by two very different economic systems – the first involves most of the rural population and centres on traditional subsistence gardening, hunting and gathering; while the second is focused on industrial, export-oriented resource extraction and plantations. The New Guinea region retains significant forest cover (some 82 million ha), but faces a growing deforestation threat. According to data from Global Forest Watch, the region lost around 1 million ha of forest from 2001 to 2012 (the Indonesia provinces of Papua and West Papua lost 373,000 ha, while PNG lost 630,000 ha).285 The rate of forest loss could surge, however, if current proposals for agricultural development are realized. According to a 2010 plan, the government of PNG expects to see substantial growth in its four major export crops (palm oil, coffee, cocoa and copra) by the year 2030, with an expansion in plantations of 5–6 per cent annually.286 Special Agricultural

Business Licences (SABLs) have been granted for over 5 million ha of customary land.287 Large-scale agricultural developments are also proposed in the Indonesian provinces of Papua and West Papua. For example, the Merauke Integrated Food and Energy Estate concept, launched in 2010 by the Indonesian government, aims to transform 1.2 million ha of forest land in West Papua province into large-scale agribusiness estates.288 The future of this proposal is uncertain. As of March 2015, the Merauke district government had zoned only 258,000 ha for agricultural development, and while over 850,000 ha of palm oil and sugarcane permits had been granted, most were inactive.289 A study of various government planning and investment maps for Papua province in 2009 found up to 2.8 million ha were proposed for plantation development.290 In both PNG and Indonesia, much uncertainty remains over the extent to

Pukapuki man in a traditional dug-out canoe. Papua New Guinea

which the proposals will become reality. They are the subject of various official inquiries and legal challenges, and their commercial viability is questionable. With many of PNG’s SABLs, for example, there is mounting evidence that they are merely ploys to gain permits to clear-fell timber, with the leaseholders having little capacity or interest in developing the cleared land for agriculture.291,292 In Indonesia, allocation of new concessions for logging or conversion of native forests is under a moratorium, which will expire in 2015. The moratorium maps indicate that over 600,000 ha of forest in the province of Papua alone would be vulnerable to potential clearance for tree plantation if the moratorium is allowed to expire.293 Studies have also identified commercial logging and expanding subsistence agriculture as major causes of deforestation

and forest degradation.294 However, there is debate about the extent to which these activities cause outright forest loss, due to the many variables affecting regeneration dynamics after forests are degraded by logging or cleared for shifting cultivation.295,296 WWF projects that the New Guinea region could lose up to 7 million ha of forest between 2010 and 2030. This is based on the following assumptions: (a) some, but by no means all, current land clearing proposals are realized; (b) the total land area cultivated for subsistence agriculture continues to expand gradually due to population pressures and other causes; and (c) loss of a portion of the forests in timber concessions continues due to encroachment, fire and illegal logging, mainly after the cessation of commercial logging operations.

37  |  Living Forests Report: Chapter 5

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover

Deforestation front focus New Guinea New Guinea key data Countries

Papua New Guinea, Indonesia

Deforestation, 2001-2012

1 million ha

Deforestation (projected), 2010-2030

7 million ha

Top causes

Agriculture, clear-fell timber harvesting

New Guinea deforestation pressures Under various project proposals and plans, up to 10 million ha of currently forested land is slated for agricultural development, but many of these are unlikely to proceed due to legal challenges, operational risks and lack of commercial viability. Due to rising populations, a gradual expansion of the total area under subsistence agriculture, including slash and burn, is likely to result in future forest loss. Most timber harvesting permits authorize selective logging only so do not result in large areas of outright forest loss. However, based on historical trends, a significant portion of the forests in timber concessions is likely to be later converted to subsistence agriculture or degraded beyond the point of recovery by illegal logging or fire. While there are no pulp mills, acacia plantations in the Indonesian portion supply woodchips for export mainly to China, to meet growing demand from expanding pulp and paper mills.297 Potential future expansion of pulp plantations could lead to forest conversion.

Heavily degraded forests are often drier and more vulnerable to permanent fire damage than healthy closed-canopy forests.

Indonesia Papua New Guinea

■ Primary cause of forest loss and/or severe degradation

Forest cover

■ Important secondary

cause of forest loss and/ or severe degradation

■ Less important cause of

forest loss and/or severe degradation

Deforestation fronts

38  |  Living Forests Report: Chapter 5

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover

© WWF-Germany/M. Radday

Deforestation front focus SUMATRA The Indonesian island of Sumatra is the sixth largest island in the world and holds some of the richest and most diverse tropical forests on the planet. They provide livelihoods to millions of people and give shelter to critically endangered species such as the Sumatran rhino, elephant, orang-utan and tiger. Sumatra, especially Riau province,298 has become the centre of Indonesia’s paper and palm oil production.299 Vast stretches of acacia and oil palm monocultures have replaced natural forests and some of the world’s largest pulp mills and palm oil refineries line the rivers and coasts. Riau province alone hosts over 200 crude palm oil extraction mills.300 Sumatra’s ecosystems are not well represented in its protected area system.301 Most parks and reserves straddle the island’s mountain ridge, few cover its vast low‑lying areas and peat swamps. From 1985, as the palm and paper sectors took hold, Sumatra suffered large-scale deforestation and many of its ecosystems became critically endangered. 302, 303 By 2014, Sumatra had lost 13.9 million ha (55 per cent) of its natural forests. Only 11.5 million ha of natural forest remained in severely fragmented blocks, covering 26 per cent of the island.304 Protected areas, especially those recognized at the national level, have proven more resistant to deforestation than other areas

though even they are being cleared for agricultural plantations.305,306,307 In Sumatra, outright deforestation was often preceded by industrial selective logging followed by illegal logging. From there deforestation has usually progressed along two paths: (1) a government declaration that the area is degraded, the rezoning of the area for conversion into pulpwood or palm oil plantations, and clearing of remaining forest for plantation development; or (2) settlement of an area by migrants, and deforestation for small-scale agriculture, oil palm and rubber plantations. While some arms of the government have developed plans to stabilize and even reverse forest loss,308,309 the status of these plans remains unclear and the desired impact has not materialized. All of Sumatra’s remaining forests are in great danger of deforestation if business as usual continues and lack of governance prevails. Elevation and soil type are no deterrents. The last forests to go will be the protected areas with the steepest slopes.

Palm oil plantation. Tesso Nilo, Riau province, Sumatra.

Based on WWF data,310 Sumatra lost 1.7 million ha of natural forest between 2008 and 2014. The deforestation rate outside protected areas was 2.9 per cent per year, mainly for pulp and palm oil production in Riau and Jambi provinces. Inside protected areas, it was 0.4 per cent. Assuming similar future rates of deforestation, WWF projects up to 5 million ha of deforestation between 2020 and 2030.

39  |  Living Forests Report: Chapter 5

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover

Deforestation front focus SUMATRA

Sumatra deforestation pressures Palm oil from small producers is driving deforestation even into protected forests and national parks.311,312

Sumatra key data Countries

Indonesia

Deforestation, 1985-2014

13.9 million ha natural forest loss (55% loss)

Deforestation (projected), 2010-2030

5 million ha

Top causes

Small-scale agriculture, infrastructure development

Road construction has been linked to deforestation313,314 and its impact will accelerate as the Trans-Sumatra toll road is realized315 and if a new bridge connects the island to mainland Malaysia.316 Licensed selective logging has all but ceased; less than 10 per cent of the permits remain active. Encroachment and illegal logging in retired logging concessions are rampant. Most have been rezoned for legal deforestation for pulpwood or palm oil plantation development.317 Indonesia’s two biggest paper players have pledged near zero deforestation,318,319 though third parties continue to clear forests set aside for conservation in the concessions of these companies, and their suppliers continue to clear forests not designated for protection due to flawed conservation and social value assessments.320,321 The future impacts of the sector on Sumatra’s forests remain uncertain due to the gap between plantation wood supply and existing and planned milling capacity, and government plans to allocate more forested land for wood supply and plantation development.

Malaysia

Fires are often set to clear land for small-scale agriculture operations and to clear logging debris, but are also often found in large commercial concessions.322 When these fires “escape” they can severely degrade nearby natural forests and drained peatlands.

Indonesia

Large palm oil producers such as Asian Agri, Golden Agri Resources, Musim Mas and Wilmar have recently pledged to halt forest conversion and pursue Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil certification. However, these voluntary commitments are at odds with policies of some government agencies that support further expansion of agriculture into forest areas. Furthermore, many palm oil mills continue to accept palm oil bunches from smallholders who have acquired land through illegal forest conversion.

■ Primary cause of forest loss and/or severe degradation

Forest cover

■ Important secondary

cause of forest loss and/ or severe degradation

■ Less important cause of

forest loss and/or severe degradation

Deforestation fronts

40  |  Living Forests Report: Chapter 5

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover

Glossary, notes and acronyms

Biodiversity:a shortened form of biological diversity, describing variation within and between species and at ecosystem level. Deforestation:Conversion of forest to another land use or long-term

reduction of tree canopy cover. This includes conversion of natural forest to tree plantations, agriculture, pasture, water reservoirs and urban areas; but excludes logging areas, where the forest is expected to regenerate naturally or with the aid of silvicultural measures.

Degradation:Changes within the forests that negatively affect the

structure or function of the stand or site, and thereby lower the capacity to supply products and/or ecosystem services.

Living Forests Model:developed for WWF by the International Institute

for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA323) the model draws on G4M and GLOBIOM models324 to show geographically explicit land-use change under different scenarios. The G4M model projects future deforestation and land-use change by extrapolating from historical trends and taking into account future projections for population, GDP and infrastructure. GLOBIOM is an economic model that allocates land and resources optimally based on projected commodity and ecosystem service demands under future GDP, population and policy scenarios. Protected area:a clearly defined geographical space that is recognized, dedicated and managed through legal or other effective means in order to achieve the long-term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values.325 Zero Net Deforestation and Forest Degradation (ZNDD):WWF defines

ZNDD as no net forest loss through deforestation and no net decline in forest quality through degradation. ZNDD provides some flexibility:it is not quite the same as no forest clearing anywhere, under any circumstances. For instance, it recognizes people’s right to clear some forests for agriculture, or the value in occasionally “trading off” degraded forests to free up other land to restore important biological corridors, provided that biodiversity values and net quantity and quality of forests are maintained. In advocating ZNDD by 2020, WWF stresses that:(a) most natural forest should be retained — the annual rate of loss of natural or semi-natural forests should be reduced to near zero; and (b) any gross loss or degradation of pristine natural forests would need to be offset by an equivalent area of socially and environmentally sound forest restoration. In this accounting, plantations are not equated with natural forests as many values are diminished when a plantation replaces a natural forest.

41  |  Living Forests Report: Chapter 5

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover

References and endnotes

1

Taylor, R. (editor). 2011. WWF Living Forests Report, Chapter 1: Forests for a Living Planet. WWF International, Gland, Switzerland. Available at: wwf.panda.org/livingforests.

2

Langston, N. 2009. Paradise Lost: Climate Change, Boreal Forests, And Environmental History Environmental History 14 (4): 641-6.

3

Soja, A.J., N.M. Tchebakova, N.H.F. French et al. 2007. Climate-induced boreal change: predictions versus current observations, Global and Planetary Change 56 (3-4): 274-296.

4

Stocks, B. J., M. A. Fosberg, T. J. Lynham, L. Mearns, B. M. Wotton, Q. Yang, J-Z. Jin, K. Lawrence, G. R. Hartley, J. A. Mason and D. W. McKenney (1998); Climate change and forest fire potential in Russian and Canadian boreal forests, Climatic Change 38: 1-13.

5

Grant, C., N. Mainville and F. Putt. 2012. Boreal Alarm: A wake-up call for action in Canada’s endangered forests. Greenpeace Canada, Toronto.

6

Cheng R. and P.G. Lee. 2009. Recent (19902007) Anthropogenic Change within the Forest Landscapes of Nova Scotia, Global Forest Watch Canada, Edmonton, Alberta.

7

Lee P. and R. Cheng. 2009. Bitumen and Biocarbon: Land use changes and loss of biological carbon due to bitumen operations in the boreal forests of Alberta, Canada, Global Forest Watch Canada, Edmonton.

8

9

Sizer, N., Petersen, R., Anderson, J., Hansen, M., Potapov, P. and Thau, D., 2015, Tree Cover Loss Spikes in Russia and Canada, Remains High Globally, World Resources Institute, at http://www.wri.org/blog/2015/04/tree-cover-lossspikes-russia-and-canada-remains-high-globally accessed on 4 April, 2015. Soja et al. Op. cit.

10 WWF. 2014. Living Planet Report 2014. WWF International, Gland, Switzerland. 11 TNC (The Nature Conservancy, Fundación Vida Silvestre Argentina, Fundación para el Desarrollo Sustentable del Chaco and Wildlife Conservation Society Bolivia). 2005. Evaluación Ecorregional del Gran Chaco Americano / Gran Chaco Americano Ecoregional Assessment. Fundación Vida Silvestre Argentina, Buenos Aires, Argentina.

12 de Wasseige, C., Devers, D., de Marcken, P., Eba’a Atyi, R., Nasi, R. and P. Mayaux (eds.) 2008. The Forests of the Congo Basin—State of the Forest 2008. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. 13 Shearman, P.L., Ash, J., Mackay, B., Bryan, J.E. and B. Lokes. 2009. Forest Conversion and Degradation in Papua New Guinea 1972–2002. Biotropica 41: 3: 379–390. 14 Paglia, A.P., da Fonseca, G.A.B., Rylands, A.B., Herrmann, G., Aguiar, L.M.S., Chiarello, A.G., Leite, Y.L.R., Costa, L.P., Siciliano, S., Kierulff, M.C.M., Mendes, S.L., Tavares, V.C., Mittermeier, R.A. and J.L. Patton. 2012. Lista anotada dos mamíferos do Brasil / Annotated Checklist of Brazilian Mammals. 2nd. Edition. Occasional Paper number 6, Conservation International, Washington DC, USA. 15 Brooks, T., Tobias, J. and A. Balmford. 1999. Deforestation and bird extinctions in the Atlantic forest. Animal Conservation 2 (3): 211-222. 16 Stotz, D.F., Fitzpatrick, J.W., Parker III, T.A. and D.K. Moskovits. 1996. Neotropical Birds: Ecology and Conservation. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, USA. 17 Mittermeier, R. A., Myers, N., Thomsen, J.B., da Fonseca, G.A.B. and S. Olivieri. 1998. Biodiversity hotspots and major tropical wilderness areas: approaches to setting conservation priorities. Conservation Biology 12: 516-520. 18 Oliveira, P.S. and Marquis, R.J. (eds.) 2002. The Cerrados of Brazil: Ecology and natural history of a neotropical savanna. Columbia University Press, New York, USA. 19 Timberlake, J. and Chidumayo, E. 2001 (published 2011). Miombo Ecoregion Vision Report. Occasional Publications in Biodiversity number 20. Biodiversity Foundation for Africa. Bulawayo, Zimbabwe. 20 Geldmann, J., Barnes, M., Coad, L., Craigie, I. D., Hockings, M. and N.D. Burgess. 2013. Effectiveness of terrestrial protected areas in reducing habitat loss and population declines. Biological Conservation 161: 230–238; Joppa, L. and Pfaff, A. 2010. Reassessing the forest impacts of protection. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1185: 135–149

21 Duveiller, G., Defourny, P., Desclee, B. and P. Mayaux. 2008. Deforestation in Central Africa: Estimates at regional, national and landscape levels by advanced processing of systematicallydistributed Landsat extracts. Remote Sensing of Environment 112: 1969–1981; Gaveau, D.L.A., Epting, J., Lyne, O., Linkie, M., Kumara, I., Kanninen, M. and N. Leader-Williams. 2009. Evaluating whether protected areas reduce tropical deforestation in Sumatra. Journal of Biogeography 36: 2165–2175; Haruna, A. 2010. Measuring protected areas’ impacts on deforestation in Panama. Masters’ thesis, Duke University. 22 Blankespoor, B., Dasgupta, S. and D. Wheeler. 2014, Protected Areas and Deforestation – New Results from High Resolution Panel Data. Policy Research Working Paper 7091, World Bank Group. 23 Clark, N.E., Boakes, E.H., McGowan, P.J.K., Mace, G.M. and R.A. Fuller. 2013. Protected Areas in South Asia Have Not Prevented Habitat Loss: A Study Using Historical Models of Land-Use Change. PLoS ONE 8; Craigie, I. D., Baillie, J.E.M., Balmford, A., Carbone, C., Collen, B., Green, R.E. and J.M. Hutton. 2010. Large mammal population declines in Africa’s protected areas. Biological Conservation 143: 2221–2228. 24 Killeen, T.J., Calderon, V., Soria, L., Quezada, B., Steininger, M.K., Harper, G., Solórzano, L.A. and C.J. Tucker. 2007. Thirty years of land-cover change in Bolivia. Ambio 36 (7): 600-606; Curran, L.M., Trigg, S.N., McDonald, A.K., Astiani, D., Hardiono, Y.M., Siregar, P., Caniago, I. and E. Kasischke. 2004. Lowland forest loss in protected areas in Borneo. Science 303: 1000-1003. 25 Mascia, M.B., Pailler, S., Krithivasan, R., Roshchanka, V., Burns, D., Mlotha, M.J., Roeber Murray, D. and N. Peng. 2014. Protected area downgrading, downsizing, and degazettement (PADDD) in Africa, Asia, and Latin America and the Caribbean, 1900–2010. Biological Conservation 169 (2014): 355–361. 26 Nelson, A. and Chomitz, K.M. 2011. Effectiveness of strict vs. multiple use protected areas in reducing tropical forest fires: a global analysis using matching methods. PLoS One 6,e22722; Leverington, F., Costa, K.L., Pavese, H., Lisle, A. and M.A. Hockings. 2010. A Global Analysis of Protected Area Management Effectiveness. Environmental Management 46: 685–698.

42  |  Living Forests Report: Chapter 5

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover

References and endnotes 27 Nolte, C., Agrawal, A., Silvius, K.M. and B.S. Soares-Filho. 2013. Governance regime and location influences avoided deforestation success of protected areas in the Brazilian Amazon. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Available at: www.pnas.org/ cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1214786110; Ferraro, P.J., Hanauer, M.M., Miteva, D.A., CanavireBacarreza, G.J., Pattanayak, S.K. and K.R.E Sims. 2013. More strictly protected areas are not necessarily more protective: evidence from Bolivia, Costa Rica, Indonesia, and Thailand. Environmental Research Letters 8: doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/025011. 28 Ranganathan, J., Raudsepp-Hearne, C., Lucas, N., Irwin, F., Zurek, M., Bennett, K., Ash, N. and P. West. 2008. Ecosystem Services: A guide to decision-makers. World Resources Institute, Washington DC, US. 29 www.teebweb.org 30 See for example wwf.panda.org/?174401/PABAT; and www.naturalcapitalproject.org 31 Smith, P., Bustamante, M., Ahammad, H., Clark, H., Dong, H., Elsiddig, E.A., Haberl, H., Harper, R., House, J., Jafari, M., Masera, O., Mbow, C., Ravindranath, N.H., Rice, C.W., Robledo Abad, C., Romanovskaya, A., Sperling, F. and F. Tubiello. 2014. Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU). In: Edenhofer, O., PichsMadruga, R., Sokona, Y., Farahani, E., Kadner, S., Seyboth, K., Adler, A., Baum, I., Brunner, S., Eickemeier, P., Kriemann, B., Savolainen, J., Schlömer, S., von Stechow, C., Zwickel, T. and J.C. Minx (eds.). 2014. Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, US. 32 Norman, M. and Nakhooda, S. 2014. The State of REDD+ Finance. CGD Climate and Forest Paper Series #5. Center for Global Development, Washington DC, US. 33 Clement, T. 2010. Reduced Expectations: the political and institutional challenges of REDD+. Oryx 44 (3): 309-310. 34 www.climatefundsupdate.org/listing/norway-sinternational-climate-and-forest-initiative

35 www.bmz.de/en/publications/topics/climate/ FlyerREDD_lang.pdf 36 www.forestcarbonpartnership.org 37 www.un.org/climatechange/summit/wp-content/ uploads/sites/2/2014/07/Climate-Summit-ActionAreas_Forests.pdf 38 WWF. 2013. Building REDD+ for People and Nature: from lessons learned across Indonesia, Peru and the Democratic Republic of Congo to a new vision for REDD+. Available at: wwf. panda.org/what_we_do/footprint/forest_climate2/ publications/?211634/Building-REDD-for-Peopleand-Nature--from-lessons-learned-acrossIndonesia-Peru-and-the-Democratic-Republic-ofCongo-to-a-new-vision-for-REDD 39 Republique Democratique du Congo. Undated. Summary, Maȉ Ndombe Emission Reduction Program, DRC, information sheet. 40 www.theconsumergoodsforum.com/strategicfocus/sustainability/our-sustainability-pillar, accessed 24 March 2015. 41 www.cisl.cam.ac.uk/business-action/sustainablefinance/banking-environment-initiative, accessed 24 March 2015. 42 See Supply Change – Commitments that Count (supply-change.org) and Global Canopy Programme, Forest 500 (www.globalcanopy.org/ forest500) 43 Rudorff, B.F.T., Adami, M., Alves Aguiar, D., Alves Moreira, M., Pupin Mello, M., Fabiani, L., Furlan Amaral, D. and B. Machado Pires. 2011. The Soy Moratorium in the Amazon Biome Monitored by Remote Sensing Images. Remote Sensing 3: 185-202. 44 Laurance, W.F., Peletier-Jellema, A., Geenen, B., Koster, H., Verweij, P., Van Dijck, P., Lovejoy, T.E., Schleicher, J. and M. Van Kuijk. 2015, Reducing the global environmental impacts of rapid infrastructure expansion. Current Biology 25, R1–R5, March 30, 2015. 45 Stickler, C.M., Coe., M.T., Costa, M.H., Nepstead, D.C., McGrath, D.G., Dias, L.C.P., Rodrigues, H.O. and B.S. Soares-Filho. 2013. Dependence of hydropower energy generation on forests in the Amazon Basin at local and regional scales. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110 (23): 9601-9606.

46 See for instance Swenson, J.J., Carter, C.E., Domec, J.C. and C.I. Delgado. 2011. Gold Mining in the Peruvian Amazon: Global Prices, Deforestation, and Mercury Imports. PLoS One 6 (4).

53 Ibid.

47 See, for example, OECD. 2007. OECD guidelines for multinational enterprises and for privatesector participation in infrastructure. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development; The Equator Principles (2014) set standards for assessing and managing environmental and social risks in project financing – available online at www.equator-principles.com/index.php/aboutep/about-ep

55 Hecht, S.B. 2005. Soybeans, development and conservation on the Amazon frontier. Development and Change 36 (2): 375-404.

48 Laurence et al, 2015, op. cit. 49 Sayer, J. and Maginnis, S. assisted by M. Laurie (eds.). 2005. Forests in Landscapes: Ecosystem approaches to sustainability. Earthscan, London, UK. See also Kissinger, G., A. Brasser, and L. Gross, 2013. Scoping study. Reducing Risk: Landscape Approaches to Sustainable Sourcing. Washington, DC. Landscapes for People, Food and Nature Initiative. 50 Da Silva Dias, A. Maretti, C., Lawrence, K., Charity, S., Oliveira, D., Johnson, J., Gomez Cerveró, L., H., Accacio, G. and G. Abdala. 2014. Deforestation Fronts in the Amazon Region: Current Situation and Future Trends, a preliminary summary. Living Amazon Initiative (LAI), WWF. 51 WWF calculations are based on PRODES INPE 2014 (data for Brazil Amazon has been adjusted for the area of the Legal Amazon in the Biome) and Global Forest Change 2013 supported by the University of Maryland. Hansen, M.C.,Potapov, P.V., Moore, R., Hancher, M., Turubanova, S.A., Tyukavina, A., Thau, D., Stehman, S.V., Goetz, S.J., Loveland, T.R.,Kommareddy, A., Egorov, A., Chini, L., Justice, C.O. and J. R. G. Townshend. 2013. High-Resolution Global Maps of 21st-Century Forest Cover Change. Science 342 (6160): 850-853. Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais (INPE, São Paulo, Brasil, 2014); www.obt.inpe.br/prodes. Forest cover for the biome is estimated at 565 million ha in 2000, not considering regeneration or restauration. Calculations by Karen Lawrence, November 2014, WWF-UK.

54 Flores, M., da Silva Jnr, U.L., Malone, H. et al. 2010. WWF’s Living Amazon Initiative. WWF, Lima.

56 Wheeler, D., Kraft, R. and D. Hammer. 2011. Forest Clearing in the Pantropics: December 2005-August 2011. Working Paper 283, Center for Global Development, Washington DC, US. 57 Tollefson, J. 2011. Changes to legislation could undermine authorities’ power to halt deforestation. Nature 476: 259-260. 58 Coca-Castro, A., Reymondin, L., Bellfield, H. and G. Hyman. 2013. Land Use Status and Trends in Amazonia. Report for Global Canopy Programme and International Center for Tropical Agriculture as part of the Amazonia Security Agenda project. Quotes Laurence 2001 at 100 million ha which is 25 per cent of the Brazil Legal Amazon. 59 Nepstad, D.C., Stickler, C.M., Soares-Filho, B. and F. Merry. 2008. Interactions among Amazon land use, forests and climate: prospects for a near-term forest tipping point. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Biological Sciences 363(1498): 1737-1746. 55 per cent of the Brazil Legal Amazon will be affected, 31 per cent from deforestation and 24 per cent from degradation. 60 Soares-Filho, B.S., Nepstad, D.C., Curran, L. et al. 2006. Modelling conservation in the Amazon basin. Nature 440: 520-523. 61 Wassenaar, T., Gerber, P., Verburg, P.H. et al. 2007. Projecting land use changes in the Neotropics: the geography of pasture expansion into forest. Global Environmental Change 17: 86-104. 62 Killeen, T. J., Guerra, A., Calzada, M., Correa, L., Calderon, V., Soria, L., Quezada, B. and M. K. Steininger. 2008. Total historical land-use change in eastern Bolivia: Who, where, when, and how much? Ecology and Society 13(1): 36. Available from: www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss1/art36

52 Ibid.

43  |  Living Forests Report: Chapter 5

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover

References and endnotes 63 Macedo, M.N., DeFries, R.S., Morton, D.C. et al. 2012. Decoupling of deforestation and soy production in the southern Amazon during the late 2000s. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 109 (4): 1341-1346. 64 Walker, R. 2011. The Impact of Brazilian Biofuel Production on Amazonia. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 101(4): 929-938. 65 Kaimowitz, D. and Smith, J. 2001. Soybean technology and the loss of natural vegetation in Brazil and Bolivia. In: Angelstam, A. and Kaimowitz, D. (eds.) Agricultural Technologies and Tropical Deforestation. CABI International. 66 Bickel, U. and Dros, J.M. 2003. The Impacts of Soybean Cultivation on Brazilian Ecosystems: Three case studies. WWF-Germany, Frankfurt, Germany. 67 Brown, J.C., Koeppe, M., Coles, B. and K.P. Price. 2005. Soybean production and conversion of tropical forest in the Brazilian Amazon: The case of Vilhena, Rondonia. Ambio 34 (6): 462469. 68 Lima, M., Skutsch, M. and G. De Madeiros Costa. 2011. Deforestation and social impacts of soy for biodiesel, perspectives of farmers in the south Brazilian Amazon. Ecology and Society 16 (4): dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-04366-160404. 69 Butler, R.A. and Laurance, W.F. 2009. Is oil palm the next emerging threat to the Amazon? Tropical Conservation Science 2(1): 1-10. 70 Walker, R. 2011. Op. cit. 71 Gutierrez-Velez, V.H., DeFries, R., PinedoVásquez, M. et al. 2011. High-yield oil palm expansion spares land at the expense of forests in the Peruvian Amazon. Environmental Research Letters 6 (4): doi:10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044029. 72 Peres, C.A. and Schneider, M. 2011. Subsidized agricultural resettlements as drivers of tropical deforestation, Biological Conservation 151 (2012): 65–68. 73 Arima, E.Y., Richards, P., Walker, R. and M.M. Caldas. 2011. Statistical confirmation of indirect land use change in the Brazilian Amazon. Environmental Research Letters 6 (2011): 024010. 7pp.

74 Morton, D.C.,DeFries, R.S., Shimabukuro, Y.E., Anderson, L.O., Arai, E., del Bon Espirito-Santo, R., Freitas, R. and J. Morisette. 2006. Cropland expansion changes deforestation dynamics in the southern Brazilian Amazon. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 103: 1463714641.

84 Morellato, L.P.C. and Haddad, C.F.B. 2000. Introduction: The Brazilian Atlantic Forest. Biotropica 32 (4b): 786-792; Thomas, W.W., Caralho, A.M.V., Amorin, A.M.A., Garrison, J. and A.L. Arbeláez. 1998. Plant endemism in two forests in southern Bahia, Brazil. Biodiversity and Conservation 7: 311-322.

75 Barona. E., Ramankutty, N., Hyman, G. and O.T. Coomes. 2010. The role of pasture and soybean in deforestation of the Brazilian Amazon. Environmental Research Letters 5 (2): 024002. 9pp.

85 The Nature Conservancy, Fundación Vida Silvestre Argentina, Fundación para el Desarrollo Sustentable del Chaco and Wildife Conservation Society Bolivia. 2005. Evaluación Ecorregional del Gran Chaco Americano / Gran Chaco Americano Ecoregional Assessment. Fundación Vida Silvestre Argentina, Buenos Aires, Argentina.

76 Müller, R., Müller, D., Schierhorn, F., Gerold, G. and P. Pacheco. 2012. Proximate causes of deforestation in the Bolivian lowlands: an analysis of spatial dynamics. Regional Environmental Change 12:445–459. 77 Alencar, A. A. C. and Pientokowski, W. 2014. Cenários de desmatamento na area de influência do complex hidroeléctrico do Tapajós. Relatorio. Instituo de Pesquisa Ambiental da Amazônia – IPAM, WWF (LAI) 2014 p.36 78 Macedo, M. and Castello, L. 2014. Hydrological alteration of Amazon freshwater ecosystems. State of the Amazon - Freshwater Connectivity. WWF Living Amazon Initiative, p.12 79 Barber, C.P., Cochrane M.A., Souza Jr. C.M. and W.F. Laurance. 2014. Roads, deforestation, and the mitigating effect of protected areas in the Amazon. Biological Conservation 177: 203–209. 80 Nepstad, D.C., Veríssimo, A., Alencar, A. et al. 1999. Large-scale impoverishment of Amazonian forests by logging and fire. Nature 398: 505-508. 81 Hall, A.L. 1989. Developing Amazonia: Deforestation and social conflict in Brazil’s Carajás programme. Manchester University Press, Manchester, UK. 82 Asner, G.P., Llactayo, W., Tupayachi, R. and E. Ráez Luna. 2013. Elevated rates of gold mining in the Amazon revealed through high-resolution monitoring. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110 (46): 18454–18459. 83 Da Silva Dias, A. et al. 2014. Op cit.

86 Vallejos, M., Bustamante, L., Ueno, A., Huykman, N., Vale, L., Arpigiani, D., Ciuffoli, L., García Collazo, A., Bonomo, I., Buchter, W., Campo Lopez, G., Campos, C., Lauro, A., Lipera, M.L., Mosso, C., Newell, N., Recondo, V., Saucedo, J., Silvoso, C., Staiano, L., Urquiza, E., Volante, J.N., Paruelo, J.M.. Publication forthcoming, Caracterizacion de la Evolucion de Los Desmontes en La Region del Chaco Semiarido. Gaspari, N.I. and Grau, H.R. 2009. Deforestation and fragmentation of Chaco dry forest in NW Argentina (1972-2007). Forest Ecology and Management 258: 913-921. 87 Huang, C., Kim, S., Altstatt, A. et al. 2007. Rapid loss of Paraguay’s Atlantic forest and the status of protected areas – A Landsat assessment. Remote Sensing of Environment 106 (4): 460-466; Huang, C., Kim, S., Song, K. et al. 2009. Assessment of Paraguay’s forest change using Landsat observations. Global and Planetary Change 67: 1-12; Galindo-Leal, C. and de Gusmão Câmara, I. (eds.). 2003. The Atlantic Forest of South America: Biodiversity status, threats and outlook. Island Press, Washington DC, USA; Cartes, J.L. and Yanosky, A. 2003. Dynamics of biodiversity loss in the Paraguayan Atlantic Forest: An introduction. In: Galindo-Leal, C. and de Gusmão Câmara, I. (eds.), op. cit. 88 Chebez, J.C. and Hilgert, N. 2003. Brief history of conservation in the Paraná Forest. In: GalindoLeal, C. and de Gusmão Câmara, I. (eds.), op. cit.

90 Zac, M.R., Cabido, M., Cáceres, D. and S. Díaz. 2008. What drives accelerated land cover change in central Argentina? Synergistic consequences of climatic, socioeconomic and technological factors. Environmental Management 42: 181-189. 91 Vallejos, M., Bustamante, L., Ueno, A., Huykman, N., Vale, L., Arpigiani, D., Ciuffoli, L., García Collazo, A., Bonomo, I., Buchter, W., Campo Lopez, G., Campos, C., Lauro, A., Lipera, M.L., Mosso, C., Newell, N., Recondo, V., Saucedo, J., Silvoso, C., Staiano, L., Urquiza, E., Volante, J.N., Paruelo, J.M.. Grau, H.R., Gasparri, N.I. and T.M. Aide. 2005. Agriculture expansion and deforestation in seasonally dry forests in northwest Argentina. Environmental Conservation 32 (2): 140-148 92 Gaspari, N.I. and Grau, H.R. 2009. Deforestation and fragmentation of Chaco dry forest in NW Argentina (1972-2007). Forest Ecology and Management 258: 913-921. 93 Semino, S., Rulli, J. and L. Joensen. 2006. Paraguay Sojero: Soy expansion and its violent attack on local and indigenous communities in Paraguay, Repression and resistance. Grupo de Reflexión Rural, Argentina. 94 Abril, A., Bartfield, P. and E.H. Bucher. 2005. The effect of fire and overgrazing disturbes on soil carbon balance in the Dry Chaco forest. Forest Ecology and Management 206 (1-3): 399-405 95 The Nature Conservancy, Fundación Vida Silvestre Argentina, Fundación para el Desarrollo Sustentable del Chaco and Wildife Conservation Society Bolivia. 2005. Op cit. 96 Veldman, J.W., Mostacedo, B., Peña-Claros, M. and F.E. Putz. Selective logging and fire as drivers of alien grass invasion in a Bolivian dry forest. Forest Ecology and Management 258: 1643-1649. 97 Gaspari, I.N. and Baldi, G. 2013. Regional patterns and controls of biomass in semiarid woodlands: lessons from the Northern Argentina Dry Chaco. Regional Environmental Change 13: 1131-1144.

89 Galindo-Leal, C. and de Gusmão Câmara, I. (eds.), op. cit.

44  |  Living Forests Report: Chapter 5

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover

References and endnotes 98 Alcorn, J.B., Zarzycki, A. and L.M. de la Cruz. 2010. Poverty, governance and conservation in the Gran Chaco of South America. Biodiversity 11 (1-2): 39-44; Villela, D.M., Nascimento, M.T., de Aragão, L.E.O.C. and D.M. da Gama. 2006. Effect of selective logging on forest structure and nutrient cycling in a seasonally dry Brazilian Atlantic forest. Journal of Biogeography 33: 506516. 99 Persson, M., Henders, S. and T. Kastner. 2014. Trading forests: Quantifying the contribution of global commodity markets to emissions from tropical deforestation. CGD Climate and Forest Paper Series number 8, Center for Global Development, Washington DC, USA. 100 Humphreys Bebbington, D. and A.J. Bebbington. 2010. Extraction, territory and inequalities: gas in the Bolivian Chaco. Canadian Journal of Development Studies 30 (1-2): 259-280. Brazil’s New Forest Code. A Guide by Frederico Machado (WWF-Brazil) and Kate Anderson (WWF-US). 2014. 101 WWF. 2005. Borneo: Treasure Island at Risk. WWF-Germany, Frankfurt am Main, Germany. Available from: wwf.panda.org/ what_we_do/where_we_work/borneo_forests/ publications/?21037/Report-Borneo-TreasureIsland-at-Risk. 102 Miettinen, J., Shi, C. and S.C. Liew. 2011. Deforestation rates in insular Southeast Asia between 2000 and 2010. Global Change Biology 17: 2261–2270. 103 Broich, M., Hansen, M., Stolle, F. et al. 2011. Remotely sensed forest cover loss shows high spatial and temporal variation across Sumatra and Kalimantan, Indonesia 2000– 2008. Environmental Research Letters 6: doi:10.1088/1748-9326/6/1/014010.

107 Gaveau, D. L. et al. 2014. Four Decades of Forest Persistence, Clearance and Logging on Borneo. PLoS One 9: e101654.

119 Fisher, B., Edwards, D.P., Giam, X. and D.S. Wilcove. 2011. The high costs of conserving Asia’s lowland rainforests. Frontier in Ecology and Environment 9(6): 329-334.

108 Carlson, K.M., Curran, L.M., Ratnasari, D. et al. 2012. Committed carbon emissions, deforestation, and community land conversation from oil palm plantation expansion in West Kalimantan, Indonesia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109: 7559-7564..

121 Wulffraat, S. 2014. Op. cit.

109 Fuller, D.O., Hardiono, M. and E. Meijaard. 2011. Deforestation projections for carbon-rich peat swamp forests of Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. Environmental Management 48: 436–447.

124 APP. 2013. Forest Conservation Policy. Available from: www.asiapulppaper.com

110 FAO. 2009. Asia-Pacific Forestry Sector Outlook Study II. Working Paper Series: Working Paper No. APFSOS II/WP/2009/02, Malaysia Forestry Outlook Study. Available from: www.fao.org/ asiapacific/forestry-outlook/en 111 President of the Republic of Indonesia. 2012. Rencana Tata Ruang Pulau Kalimantan. No. PP 03/2012. 112 Wulffraat, S. 2014, The Environmental Status of the Heart of Borneo. WWF Heart of Borneo Initiative. 113 See wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/where_we_ work/borneo_forests/about_borneo_forests/ declaration.cfm, [accessed April 2015]. 114 Dorais, A. and Cardille, J. 2011. Strategies for Incorporating High-Resolution Google Earth Databases to Guide and Validate Classifications: Understanding Deforestation in Borneo. Remote Sensing 3: 1157-1176. 115 Carlson et al. Op. cit.

104 Langner, A., Miettinen, J. and F. Siegert. 2007. Land cover change 2002–2005 in Borneo and the role of fire derived from MODIS imagery. Global Change Biology 13: 2329–2340.

116 Gaveau, D.L.A., Wich, S., Epting, J., Juhn, D., Kanninen, M. and N. Leader-Williams. 2009. The future of forests and orangutans (Pongo abelii) in Sumatra: predicting impacts of oil palm plantations, road construction, and mechanisms for reducing carbon emissions from deforestation. Environmental Research Letters 4: 034013.

105 Information from Thomas Barano, WWFIndonesia.

117 Information from Stephen Wulffraat, WWFIndonesia.

106 Gaveau D.L., Kshatriya, M., Sheil, D., Sloan, S., Molidena, E. et al. 2013. Reconciling Forest Conservation and Logging in Indonesian Borneo. PloS one 8: e69887.

118 Environmental Protection Agency. 2012. Notice of Data Availability Concerning Renewable Fuels Produced From Palm Oil Under the RFS Program, Federal Register 77(18): 4300-4318.

120 FAO. 2009. Op. cit. 122 Langner et al. 2007. Op. cit. 123 Langner et al. 2007. Op. cit.

125 APRIL. 2014. Sustainable Forest Management Policy. Available from: www.aprilasia.com 126 Rainforest Alliance. 2015. An Evaluation of Asia Pulp & Paper’s Progress to Meet its Forest Conservation Policy (2013) and Additional Public Statements. Available from: www.rainforestalliance.org/sites/default/files/uploads/4/150205Rainforest-Alliance-APP-Evaluation-Report-en. pdf 127 Eyes on the Forest. 2014. APRIL/RGE continues deforestation. Available from: assets.worldwildlife. org/publications/749/files/original/APRIL_RGE_ report_November_2014.pdf?1418396227

134 MMA. 2010. Plano de Ação para Prevenção e Controle do Desmatamento e das Queimadas no Cerrado. Revised Version, September 2010. 135 Ribeiro, S.C., Lutz Fehrmann, L., Soares, C.P.B. et al. 2011. Above- and below ground biomass in a Brazilian Cerrado. Forest Ecology and Management 262: 491–499. 136 Durigan, G. and Ratter, J.A. 2006. Successional changes in Cerrado and Cerrado/forest ecotonal vegetation in western São Paulo state, Brazil, 1962–2000. Edinburgh Journal Of Botany 63(1): 119–130. 137 Müller, R., Müller, D., Florian Schierhorn, F., Gerold, G., 2011, Spatiotemporal modeling of the expansion of mechanized agriculture in the Bolivian lowland forests, Applied Geography 31 (2011) 631 138 See www.mma.gov.br/florestas/controle-epreven%C3%A7%C3%A3o-do-desmatamento 139 Bresolin, J.D., Bustamante, M.M.C., Krüger, R.H., Silva, M.R.S.S. and K.S. Perez. 2010. Structure and composition of bacterial and fungal community in soil under soybean monoculture in the Brazilian Cerrado. Brazilian Journal of Microbiology 41: 391-403.

128 Dennis, R.A. and Colfer, C.P. 2006. Impacts of land use and fire on the loss and degradation of lowland forest in 1983-2000 in East Kutai District, East Kalimantan, Indonesia. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography 27: 30-48.

140 Ibid.

129 Wulffraat, S. 2014. Op. cit.

142 Ibid.

130 Mongabay. New corruption allegations in Sarawak energy project. 4 November 2013. Available from: news.mongabay.com/2013/1104sarawak-cable.html [accessed 7 January 2014].

143 Information from WWF-Brazil.

131 Langner et al. 2007. Op. cit.

145 Sawyer, D. 2008. Climate change, biofuels and eco-social impacts in the Brazilian Amazon and Cerrado. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 363: 1747–1752.

132 Bryan, J.E., Shearman, P.L., et al. 2013. Extreme differences in forest degradation in Borneo: Comparing practices in Sarawak, Sabah, and Brunei. PLoS One 8(7):e69679. 133 Coe, M.T., Latrubesse, E.M., Ferreira, M.E. and M.I. Amsler. 2011. The effects of deforestation and climate variability on the streamflow of the Araguaia River, Brazil. Biogeochemistry 105: 119–131.

141 ITTO. 2005. Status of Tropical Forest Management 2005. International Tropical Timber Organisation, Yokohama, Japan.

144 Klink, C. and Machado, R.B. 2005. Conservation of the Brazilian Cerrado. Conservation Biology 19(3).

146 Information from WWF-Brazil. 147 Bresolin et al. 2010. Op. cit. 148 Ibid. 149 Wood, A., Stedman-Edwards, P. and J. Mang. (eds.) 2000. The Root Causes of Biodiversity Loss. Earthscan, London, UK.

45  |  Living Forests Report: Chapter 5

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover

References and endnotes 150 Oliveira, P.S. and Marquis, R.J. (eds.) 2002. The Cerrados of Brazil: Ecology and natural history of a neotropical savanna. Columbia University Press, New York, US. 151 Fearnside, P.M. 2001. Soybean cultivation as a threat to the environment in Brazil. Environmental Conservation 28(1): 23-38. 152 WWF-UK. 2011. Soya and the Cerrado: Brazil’s forgotten jewel. WWF-UK, Godalming, UK. 153 WWF-Colombia. 2014. Landscape management in Chocó-Darién priority watersheds. WWFColombia, Cali Colombia. 154 Gómez Navia, L.F. 2008. Plan de Acción Ecorregional Chocó-Darién. WWF-Colombia, Cali, Colombia; additional information from wwf. panda.org/what_we_do/where_we_work/choco_ darien [accessed 25 August 2012]. 155 Mosandl, R., Stimm, S.G.B. and M. Weber. 2008. Ecuador Suffers the Highest Deforestation Rate in South America. In: Beck, E. et al. (eds.) Gradients in a Tropical Mountain Ecosystem of Ecuador. Ecological Studies 198. SpringerVerlag, Berlin Heidelberg, pp.37-40; Conservation International. 2011. Biological diversity in Tumbes-Chocó-Magdalena. Encyclopedia of Earth. Available from: www.eoearth.org/article/ Biological_diversity_in_Tumbes-Choc%C3%B3Magdalena [accessed 28 May 2012]. 156 Ministerio del Ambiente. 2012. Línea Base de Deforestación del Ecuador Continental. Government of Ecuador, Quito, Ecuador. 157 Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund. 2001 (updated 2005). Ecosystem Profile: ChocóManabí Conservation Corridor, Colombia and Ecuador, CEPF, Washington DC, US. 158 Cabrera E., Vargas, D.M., Galindo, G., García, G.M.C., Ordoñez, M.F., Vergara, L.K., Pacheco, A.M.,Rubiano, J.C. and P. Giraldo. 2011. Memoria técnica de la cuantificación de la deforestación histórica nacional – escalas gruesa y fi na. Instituto de Hidrología, Meteorología, y Estudios Ambientales-IDEAM. Bogotá, Colombia. 159 ITTO. 2005. Status of Tropical Forest Management 2005. International Tropical Timber Organisation, Yokohama, Japan.

160 Etter, A., McAlpine, C., Phinn, S., Pullar, D. and H. Possingham. 2006. Characterizing a tropical deforestation wave: a dynamic spatial analysis of a deforestation hotspot in the Colombian Amazon, Global Change Biology 12: 1409-1420

169 Zorrilla, C. 2003. Mining: The New Threat to Biodiversity in the Andes. Lyonia 5(2): 179184. Available from: www.lyonia.org/Archives/ Lyonia%205(2)%202003(101-212)/Zorrilla,%20 C.%3B%20Lyonia%205(2)%202003(179-184).pdf

161 Ministerio de Ambiente y Dessarollo Sostenible. Undated. Deforestación en Parques Nacionales Entre los anos 2002 y 2007, PowerPoint presentation.

170 WWF-Colombia. 2014. Landscape management in Chocó-Darién priority watersheds. WWFColombia, Cali, Colombia.

162 Imbach, P., Robalino, J., Brenes, C., Zamora, J.C., Cifuentes, M., Sandoval, C., and Beardsley, M. 2013. Analisis de cambio de uso de la tierra (1992 – 2008) y formulación de escenarios de deforestación futura de los bosques de Panamá. Centro Agronómico Tropical de Investigación y Enseñanza (CATIE). Programa conjunto de las naciones unidas para la reducción de emisiones provenientes de deforestación y de degradación de los bosques en Panamá (UN-REDD). 34p. http://miambiente.gob.pa/redd/index.php/ joomlaorg 163 Sloan, S. 2008. Reforestation amidst deforestation: simultaneity and succession. Global Environmental Change 18: 425-441. 164 Haruna, A. 2010. Measuring protected areas’ impacts on deforestation in Panama. Masters thesis, Duke University. 165 Proyecciones de deforestación, Proyecto capacidad técnica para apoyar REDD en Colombia. Available from: www.siac.gov.co/ documentos/DOC_Portal/DOC_Bosques/ PROYECCIONES%20INSERTO.pdf [accessed 5 January 2014]. 166 Etter, A., McAlpine, C., Wilson, K., Phinn, S. and H. Possingham. 2006. Regional patterns of agricultural land use and deforestation in Colombia. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 114: 369–386 167 Dávalos, L.M., Bejarano, A.C., Hall, M.A. et al. 2011. Environmental Science and Technology 45: 1219-1227. 168 WWF-Colombia. 2010. inthefield11, November – January. Available from: assets.panda.org/ downloads/enaccion_11_eng_4_marcadores.pdf [accessed 27 May 2012]

171 Eynde & Blomley 2014. Improving our understanding of ilegal logging in the context of implementating a successful VPA. A study into timber trade flows, actors and impacts of illegal logging. Draft report. 172 López, S., Sierra, R. and M. Tirado. 2010. Tropical deforestation in the Ecuadorian Chocó: logging practices and socio-spatial relationships. The Geographical Bulletin 51: 3-22. 173 Andrade Pérez, A. 2008. The Chocó-Manabí conservation corridor and applying the ecosystem approach. In: Andrade Pérez, A. (ed.) Applying the Ecosystem Approach in Latin America. Ecosystem Management Series number 7, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland (originally published in Spanish in Bogota, 2007). 174 Information from MacArthur Foundation, in PowerPoint from WWF. 175 WWF-Colombia. 2014. Landscape management in Chocó-Darién priority watersheds. 176 Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund. 2001. Chocó-Manabí Conservation Corridor: Colombia and Ecuador. Available from: www.cepf.net/ Documents/final.choco-darien-westernecuador. choco.ep.pdf [accessed 25 May 2012]. 177 Fjeldså, J., Álvarez, M.D., Lazcano, J.M. and B. León. 2005. Illicit crops and armed conflict as constraints on biodiversity conservation in the Andes region. Ambio 34 (3): 205-211. 178 Nkem, J.N., Somorin, O.A., Jum, C. et al. 2012. Profiling climate change vulnerability of forest indigenous communities in the Congo Basin. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategy for Global Change, DOI: 10.1007/s11027-012-9372-8. 179 FAO. 2011. The State of Forests in the Amazon Basin, Congo Basin and Southeast Asia. A report prepared for the Summit of the Three Rainforest Basins Brazzaville, Republic of Congo, 31 May–3 June, 2011. FAO, Rome, Italy.

180 Bell, A.R., Riolo, R.L., Doremus, J.M. et al. 2012. Fragmenting forests: the double edge of effective forest monitoring, Environmental Science & Policy 16, 20–30; de Wasseige, C.,Flynn, J., Louppe, D., Hiol Hiol, F. and Mayaux, P. (eds.) 2014. The Forests of the Congo Basin: State of the Forests 2013. OFAC/COMIFAC, Weyrich, Belgium. 181 Megevand, C. et al. 2013. Deforestation Trends in the Congo Basin; Reconciling Economic Growth and Forest Protection. The World Bank, Washington DC, US; De Wasseige, C., de Marcken, P., Bayol, N., Hiol, F.H., Mayaux, P., Desclee, B., Nasi, R., Billand, A., Defourny, P. and R.E. Atyi. 2012. The Forests of the Congo Basin—State of the Forest 2010. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg; Mayaux, P., Pekel, J.F., Desclée, B., Donnay, F., Lupi, A., Achard, F., Clerici, M., Bodart, C., Brink, A., Nasi, R. and A. Belward. 2013. State and evolution of the African rainforests between 1990 and 2010. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 368: 20120300. 182 Tyukavina, A., Stehman, S.V., Potapov, P.V., Turubanova, S.A., Baccini, A., Goetz, S.J., Laporte, N.T., Houghton, R.A. and M.C. Hansen. 2013. National-scale estimation of gross forest aboveground carbon loss: a case study of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Environmental Research Letters 8 044039 183 Hansen, M.C., Potapov, P.V., Moore, R., Hancher, M., Turubanova, S.A., Tyukavina, A., Thau, D., Stehman, S.V., Goetz, S.J., Loveland, T.R., Kommareddy, A., Egorov, A., Chini, L., Justice, C.O. and J.R.G. Townshend. 2013. High-Resolution Global Maps of 21st-Century Forest Cover Change. Science 342: 850-853 – supplementary material; Bogaert, J., Bamba, I., Koffi, K.J. et al. 2008. Fragmentation of Forest Landscapes in Central Africa: Causes, consequences and management. In: Lafortezza, R., Chen, J., Sanasi, G. and T.R. Crow (eds.). Patterns and Processes in Forest Landscapes. Springer, New York, US, pp.67-87. 184 Fonjong, L. 2006. Managing deforestation in anglophone Cameroon: are NGOs pacesetters? International Journal of Environmental Studies 63(5): 663-679.

46  |  Living Forests Report: Chapter 5

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover

References and endnotes 185 Duveiller, G., Defourny, P., Desclee, B. and P. Mayaux. 2008. Deforestation in Central Africa: Estimates at regional, national and landscape levels by advanced processing of systematicallydistributed Landsat extracts. Remote Sensing of Environment 112: 1969–1981. 186 Zhang, Q., Justice, C.O., Jiang, M., Brunner, J. and D.S. Wilkie. 2006. A GIS-based assessment on the vulnerability and future extent of the tropical forests of the Congo Basin. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 114: 107–121. 187 The Center for Environment and Development the Rainforest Foundation & Forests Monitor (eds.). 2003. Forest Management Transparency, Governance and the Law: Case studies from the Congo Basin. Prepared for the Ministerial Conference on Africa Forest Law Enforcement and Governance, Yaoundé, 13-16 October 2003. 188 FAO. 2011. Op. cit. 189 Ickowitz, A., Slayback, D., Asanzi, P. and R. Nasi. 2015. Agriculture and deforestation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo: A synthesis of the current state of knowledge. Occasional Paper 119. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia. 190 Marien, J-N. 2009. Peri-Urban Forests and Wood Energy: What Are the Perspectives for Central Africa? In: de Wasseige, C. et al. (eds.) The Forests of the Congo Basin—State of the Forest 2008. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. 191 Rainforest Foundation. 2013. Seeds of Destruction: Expansion of industrial oil palm in the Congo Basin: Potential impacts on forests and people. Rainforest Foundation, London, UK. 192 Hoyle, D. and Levang, P. 2012. Oil Palm Development in Cameroon. WWF, IRD and CIFOR, Yaoundé, updated by 2013 report from WWF.

195 Karsenty, A. and Gourlet-Fleury S. 2006. Assessing sustainability of logging practices in the Congo Basin’s managed forests: the issue of commercial species recovery. Ecology and Science 11 (1): 26. 196 Megevand, C. 2013. Deforestation Trends in the Congo Basin: Reconciling Economic Growth and Forest Protection. World Bank, Washington DC, USA. doi: 10.1596/978-0-8213-9742-8. 197 TEREA, A.fBois, FORM International. 2012. Quel avenir pour les produits bois éco-certifiés africains sur le marché européen? ATIBT, Paris, France. 198 Rowe, R. 2013. Has the EU fallen for Congo rainforest logging scam? BBC online, 22 July 2013. Available from: www.bbc.co.uk/news/worldafrica-23358055 [accessed 5 January 2014]. 199 Putzel, L., Assembe-Mvondo, S., Ndong, L.B.B. et al. 2011. Chinese Trade and Investment in the Forests of the Congo Basin. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia. 200 Ingram, V., Chupezi Tieguhong, J., Schure, J., Nkamgnia, E. and M.H. Tadjuidje. 2011. Where artisanal mines and forest meet: Socio-economic and environmental impacts in the Congo Basin. Natural Resources Forum 35: 304–320. 201 Reed, E. and Miranda, M. 2007. Assessment of the Mining Sector and Infrastructure Development in the Congo Basin Region. WWF-US, Washington DC, US. 202 Schwartz, B., Hoyle, D. and S. Nguiffo. 2012. Emerging trends in land-use conflicts in Cameroon: Overlapping natural resource permits threaten protected areas and foreign direct investment. WWF, Yaoundé, Cameroon. 203 D. Hoyle personal communication from WWFCameroon office. 204 Schwartz, B. et al. Op. cit.

193 Rainforest Foundation. 2013. Op. cit. and information from WWF in Cameroon

205 Global Witness. 2012. Rigged? The scramble for Africa’s oil, gas and minerals. London, UK.

194 Plouvier, D. 1998. The situation of tropical moist forests and forest management in Central Africa and markets for African timber. In: Besselink, C. and Sips, P. (eds.) The Congo Basin: Le Bassin du Congo. Netherlands Committee for IUCN, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

206 Mosnier, A., Havlík, P., Obersteiner, M., Aoki, K., Schmid, E., Fritz, S., McCallum, I. and S. Leduc. 2012. Modeling Impact of Development Trajectories and a Global Agreement on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation on Congo Basin Forests by 2030. Environmental Resource Economics, DOI 10.1007/s10640-0129618-7.

207 Hansen, M.C., et al. 2013. Science 342: 850-853. 208 Ryan, C.M., Hill, T., Woollen, E., Ghee, C., Mitchard, E., Cassells, G., Grace, J., Woodhouse, I.H. and M. Williams. 2011. Quantifying smallscale deforestation and forest degradation in African woodlands using radar imagery. Global Change Biology, doi: 10.1111/j.13652486.2011.02551.x 209 Strömquist, L. and Backéus, I. 2009. Integrated landscape analyses of change of Miombo woodland in Tanzania and its implication for environment and human livelihood. Geografiska Annaler: Series A, Physical Geography 91 (1):31–45; Holden, S. 2001. A Century of Technological Change and Deforestation in the Miombo Woodlands of Northern Zambia. In: Angelsen, A. and Kaimowitz, D. (eds.) Agricultural Technologies and Tropical Deforestation. CAB International, Wallingford, UK. 210 Bandyopadhyay, S., Shyamsundar, P. and A. Baccini. 2011. Forests, biomass use and poverty. Ecological Economics 70: 2461-2471. 211 Byers, B. 2001. Conserving the Miombo Ecoregion: Final reconnaissance summery report. WWF, Harare, Zimbabwe. 212 Fisher, M. and Shively, G.E. 2007. Agricultural Subsidies and Forest Pressure in Malawi’s Miombo Woodlands. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 32 (2): 349. 213 WWF Miombo Ecoregion Programme. 2012. Miombo Ecoregion “Home of the Zambezi”: Conservation Strategy 2011-2020. Harare, Zimbabwe. 214 Wilson. A. 2011. The Forests and Woodlands of Coastal East Africa. WWF International, Gland, Switzerland. 215 Bond, I., Chambwera, M., Jones, B., Chundama, M. and I. Nhantumbo. 2010. REDD+ in dryland forests: Issues and prospects for pro-poor REDD in the Miombo woodlands of southern Africa. Natural Resource Issues No. 21. IIED, London, UK. 216 Walker, S. M. and Desanker, P.V. 2004. The impact of land use on soil carbon in Miombo Woodlands of Malawi. Forest Ecology and Management 203: 345-360.

217 Scholes, R.J. and Biggs, R. 2010. Appendix 5: Miombo Woodlands. In: Leadley, P., Pereira, H.M., Alkemade, R. et al. (eds.) Biodiversity Scenarios: Projections of 21st century change in biodiversity and associated ecosystem services. Technical Series no. 50, Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal, Canada. 218 Godoy, F.L., Tabor, K., Burgess, N.D., Mbilinyi, B.P., Kashaigili, J.J. and M.K. Steininger. 2011. Deforestation and CO2 emissions in coastal Tanzania from 1990 to 2007. Environmental Conservation 39 (1): 62-71. 219 Wilson. A. 2011. Op. cit. 220 Pfeifer, M., Burgess, N.D., Swetnam, R.D., Platts, P.J., Willcock, S. et al. 2012. Protected Areas: Mixed Success in Conserving East Africa’s Evergreen Forests. PLoS ONE 7(6): e39337. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0039337; Watson, F.G.R., Becker, M.S., Milanzi, J. and M. Nyirenda. 2014. Human encroachment into protected area networks in Zambia: implications for large carnivore conservation. Regional Environmental Change, DOI 10.1007/s10113-014-0629-5. 221 Hall, J., Burgess, N.D., Lovett, J., Mbilinyi, B. and R.E. Geneau. 2009. Conservation implications of deforestation across an elevational gradient in the Eastern Arc Mountains, Tanzania. Biological Conservation 142 (11): 2510-2521. 222 Calculated from data in the Encyclopaedia of the Earth: www.eoearth.org/view/article/151892, accessed 7 January 2014. 223 Environmental Investigation Agency. 2014. First Class Crisis, China’s Criminal and Unsustainable Intervention in Mozambique’s Miombo Forests. Available from: eia-international.org/reports/firstclass-crisis-chinas-criminal-and-unsustainableintervention-in-mozambiques-miombo-forests 224 Ahrends, A., Burgess, N.D., Milledge, S.A.H., Bulling, M.T., Fisher, B., Smart, J.C.R., Clarke, G.P., Mhoro, B.E. and S.L. Lewis. 2010. Predictable waves of sequential forest degradation and biodiversity loss spreading from an African city. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107 (33). 225 African Union/New Partnership for African Development. 2009. African Action Plan 20102015.

47  |  Living Forests Report: Chapter 5

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover

References and endnotes 226 Leadley, P., Pereira, H.M., Alkemade, R. et al. (eds.) 2010. Biodiversity Scenarios: Projections of 21st century change in biodiversity and associated ecosystem services. Technical Series no. 50, Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal, Canada. 227 Chipikaa, J.T. and Kowerob, G. 2000. Deforestation of woodlands in communal areas of Zimbabwe: is it due to agricultural policies? Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 79: 175–185 228 Bond et al. 2010. Op. cit. 229 Lawrence, W.J., Sayer, J. and K.G. Cassman. 2014. Agricultural expansion and its impacts on tropical nature. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 29 (2): 107-116. 230 UN-REDD Programme. 2015. Zambia National Strategy to Reduce Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD+). Ministry of Lands, Natural Resources and Environmental protection, Forestry Department. UN-REDD Programme. 231 Forestry and Beekeeping Division. 2006. Threats to Eastern Arc Mountain forests and solutions to those threats as defined by stakeholders in Eastern Arc Districts. Compiled by Kathryn Doody and Shukuru Nyagawa for Conservation and Management of the Eastern Arc Mountain Forests, Forestry and Beekeeping Division, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. 232 Ibid. 233 Nduwamungu, J., Bloesch, U., Munishi, P.T.K., Hagedorn, F. and K. Lulu. 2008. Recent Land Cover and Use Changes in Miombo Woodlands of Eastern Tanzania. Available from: www. adansonia-consulting.ch/document/Article.Jean. Land_cover_use_changes_in_miombo-NEW11. pdf [accessed 22 June 2012]. 234 Garrett, W. 2009. Conservation of Miombo woodland in Mozambique, Plan Vivo Technical Specification 2. Available from: planvivo. org.34spreview.com/wp-content/uploads/ MOZavoided-deforestation-technicalspecification.pdf [accessed 22 June 2012]. 235 Ahrends, A. et al. 2010. Op. cit.

236 Chirwa, P.W., Syampungani, S. and C.J. Geldenhuys. 2008. The ecology and management of the Miombo woodlands for sustainable livelihoods in southern Africa: the case for non-timber forest products. Southern Forests: a Journal of Forest Science 70(3): 237245. 237 See for example Schaafsma, M., Burgess, N.D., Swetnam, R.D., Ngaga, Y.M., Turner, R.K. and T. Treue. 2014. Market Signals of Unsustainable and Inequitable Forest Extraction: Assessing the Value of Illegal Timber Trade in the Eastern Arc Mountains of Tanzania. World Development 62: 155-168; Campbell, B.M., Angelsen, A., Cunningham, A., Katere, Y., Sitoe, A. and S. Wunder. 2007. Miombo Woodlands – opportunities and barriers to sustainable forest management. Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia. 238 Personal communication from WWF team. 239 Edwards, D.P., Sloan, S., Weng, L., Dirks, P., Sayer, J. and W.F. Laurence. 2014. Mining and the African Environment. Conservation Letters 7 (3): 302-311. 240 Tyynelä, T. 2011. Huge Yields of Green Belts? Mega and Micro Plantation Forestry Cases from Indonesia, Ghana and Zimbabwe. In: Brunn, S.D. (ed.) Engineering Earth: The Impacts of Megaengineering Projects‬. Springer, New York, US. pp.1353-1368. 241 Von Maltitz, G. and Setzkorn, K. 2012. Potential impacts of biofuels on deforestation in Southern Africa. Journal of Sustainable Forestry 31: 80-97; Schut, M., Slingerland, M. and A. Locke. 2010. Biofuel developments in Mozambique. Update and analysis of policy, potential and reality. Energy Policy 38: 5151–5165. 242 WWF-Australia. 2014. Building Nature’s Safety Net 2014: A decade of protected area achievements in Australia. Available from: wwf. org.au/news_resources/resource_library/?11700/ Building-Natures-Safety-Net-2014 243 WWF-Australia. 2014. Changing land use to save Australian wildlife. Available from: wwf.org. au/?11441/Changing-land-use-to-save-Australianwildlife 244 Atlas of Living Australia area report: spatial.ala. org.au/#

245 Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. 2013. Koala populations in Queensland, New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory and national environment law. Available from: www. environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/ publications/factsheet-koala-populationsqueensland-nsw-act-national 246 Williams, K.J. 2011. Forests of East Australia: the 35th biodiversity hotspot. Biodiversity hotspots. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 295-310. 247 Queensland tropical rain forests and Brigalow tropical savannahs, in Olson, D. M., Dinerstein, E., Wikramanayake, E. D., Burgess, N. D., Powell, G. V. N., Underwood, E. C., D’Amico, J. A., Itoua, I., Strand, H. E., Morrison, J. C., Loucks, C. J., Allnutt, T. F., Ricketts, T. H., Kura, Y., Lamoreux, J. F., Wettengel, W. W., Hedao, P., Kassem, K. R. 2001. Terrestrial ecoregions of the world: a new map of life on Earth. Bioscience 51(11):933-938 (available from https:// www.worldwildlife.org/publications/terrestrialecoregions-of-the-world). 248 Siriwardena, L., Finlayson, B. L. and T.A. McMahon, T. A. 2006. The impact of land use change on catchment hydrology in large catchments: The Comet River, Central Queensland, Australia. Journal of Hydrology, 326(1), 199-214. Cowie, B. A., Thornton, C. M. and B.J. Radford. 2007. The Brigalow Catchment Study: I. Overview of a 40-year study of the effects of land clearing in the Brigalow bioregion of Australia. Soil Research 45(7), 479-495. 249 Joo, M., Raymond, M. A., McNeil, V. H., Huggins, R., Turner, R. D. and S. Choy, S. 2012. Estimates of sediment and nutrient loads in 10 major catchments draining to the Great Barrier Reef during 2006–2009. Marine pollution bulletin 65(4): 150-166. 250 WWF-Australia. 2014. Changing land use to save Australian wildlife. Available from http://www. wwf.org.au/?11441/Changing-land-use-to-saveAustralian-wildlife

252 WWF-Australia briefing 10 March 2015, Native wildlife at risk if NSW Native Vegetation Act is repealed. Available from http://www.wwf.org.au/ news_resources/resource_library/?12820/Nativewildlife-at-risk-if-NSW-Native-Vegetation-Act-isrepealed 253 Chaudhury, M. 2009. APFSOS II: Assessing the protection of forest-based environmental services in the GMS. FAO, Bangkok, Thailand. 254 Stibig, H-J., Stolle, F., Dennis, R. and C. Feldkötter. 2007. Forest Cover Change in Southeast Asia: The Regional Pattern. European Commission Joint Research Centre. 255 Loucks, C., Mascia, M.B., Maxwell, A., Huy, K., Duong, K., Chea, N., Long, B., Cox, N. and T. Seng. 2009. Wildlife decline in Cambodia, 1953– 2005: exploring the legacy of armed conflict. Conservation Letters 2: 82–92. 256 FAO. 2011. Asia-Pacific Forestry Commission Forests and Forestry In The Greater Mekong Subregion to 2020. Subregional Report Of The Second Asia-Pacific Forestry Sector Outlook Study, RAP Publication 2011/04 FAO, Bangkok, Thailand; FAO. 2011. State of the World’s Forests 2011. FAO, Rome; Corlett, R.T. 2007. The Impact of Hunting on the Mammalian Fauna of Tropical Asian Forests. Biotropica 39: 292–303. 257 Duckworth, J.W., Batters, G., Belant, J.L., Bennett, E.L., Brunner, J., Burton, J., Challender, D.W.S., Cowling, V., Duplaix, N., Harris, J.D., Hedges, S., Long, B., Mahood, S.P., McGowan, P.J.K., McShea, W.J., Oliver, W.L.R., Perkin, S., Rawson, B.M., Shepherd, C.R., Stuart, S.N., Talukdar, B.K., van Dijk, P.P., Vié, J-C., Walston, J.L., Whitten, T. and R. Wirth. Why South-East Asia should be the World’s Priority for Averting Imminent Species Extinctions, and a Call to Join a Developing Cross-Institutional Programme to Tackle this Urgent Issue. Sapiens 5 (2): 77-95. 258 FAO. 2010. Global forest resources assessment 2010. Rome, Italy.

251 Taylor, M.F.J and Dickman, C. 2014. NSW Native Vegetation Act Saves Australian Wildlife. WWFAustralia, Sydney, Australia. Available from: www. wwf.org.au/?9540/NSW-native-vegetation-actsaves-Australian-wildlife

48  |  Living Forests Report: Chapter 5

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover

References and endnotes 259 Meyfroidt, P. and Lambin, E.F. 2011. Global Forest Transition: Prospects for an End to Deforestation. Annual Review of Environmental Resouces 36: 343–371; Lambin, E.F. and Meyfroidt, P. 2010. Land use transitions: Socioecological feedback versus socio-economic change. Land Use Policy 27 (2): 108–118; Meyfroidt, P. and Lambin, E.F. 2008. Forest transition in Vietnam and its environmental impacts. Global Change Biology 14 (6): 1319– 1336.

268 Environmental Investigation Agency / Telapak. 2008. Borderlines: Vietnam’s Booming Furniture Industry and Timber Smuggling in the Mekong Region. EIA/Telapak, London, UK.

260 Rozelle, S., Huang, J. and V. Benziger. 2003. Forest Exploitation and Protection in Reform China: Assessing the Impacts of Policy and Economic Growth. In: Hyde, W.F., Belcher, B. and J. Xu (eds.) China’s Forests: Global Lessons from Market Reforms. Resources for the Future, Washington DC, US. pp. 109–133; Song, C. and Zhang, Y. 2010. Forest Cover in China from 1949 to 2006. In: Nagendra, H. and Southworth, J. (eds.) 2010. Reforesting Landscapes: Linking Pattern and Process. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. pp. 341–356

272 Global Witness. 2002. Deforestation without limits: How the Cambodian government failed to tackle the untouchables; PROFOR (Program on Forests). 2011. Improving Forest Governance in the Mekong Region, Volume 1. Working Paper. PROFOR, Washington DC, US.

261 Mekong River Commission. 2003. State of the Basin Report: 2003. Executive Summary. MRC, Phnom Penh, Cambodia. 262 WWF Greater Mekong. 2013. Ecosystems in the Greater Mekong: Past trends, current status, possible futures. Bangkok, Thailand. 263 Ibid. 264 FAO. 2007. The World’s Mangroves 1980-2005. FAO Forestry Paper 153, Rome, Italy. 265 Quy, V. 2005. The attack of Agent Orange on the environment in Vietnam and its consequences. Agent Orange and Dioxin in Vietnam, 35 years later. Proceedings of the Paris Conference (Senate, 11-12 March 2005). 266 Reynolds, L. 2005. Pulping Cambodia: Asia Pulp and Paper and the threat to Cambodia’s Forests. Multinational Monitor 26(3): 36-39. 267 Songer, M., Aung, M., Senior, B., DeFries, R. and P. Leimgruber. 2009. Spatial and temporal deforestation dynamics in protected and unprotected dry forests: a case study from Myanmar (Burma). Biodiversity Conservation 18: 1001-1018.

269 Environmental Investigation Agency / Telapak. 2005. Stemming the Tide: Halting the Trade in Stolen Timber in Asia. EIA/Telapak, London, UK. 270 WWF Greater Mekong. 2013. Op. cit. 271 FAO. 2009. Op. cit.

273 Baumüller, H. 2008. Prospects and Drivers for Agricultural Change in the Mekong Region: The case of sugar, rice and rubber. WWF Greater Mekong Programme, Vientiane, Lao PDR. 274 Yang, J., Huang, J., Qui, H., Rozelle, S. and M.A. Sombilla. 2009. Biofuels and the Greater Mekong Subregion: Assessing the impact on prices, production and trade. Applied Energy 86: 537-546 275 Webb, E.L., Jachowski, N.R.A., Phelps, J., Friess, D.A., Than, M.M. and A.D. Ziegler. 2014. Deforestation in the Ayeyarwady Delta and the conservation implications of an internationallyengaged Myanmar. Global Environmental Change 24: 321-333; Woods, K. 2013. Timber trade flows and Actors in Myanmar. Forest Trends, Washington DC, US. 276 Woods, K. 2015. Commercial agriculture expansion in Myanmar: Links to deforestation, conversion timber and land conflicts. Forest Trends, Washington DC, US. 277 Environmental Investigation Agency and Telepak. 2008. Op. cit.; Katsigris, E., Bull, G.Q., White, A. et al. 2004. The China forest products trade: overview of Asia-Pacific supplying countries, impacts and implications. International Forestry Review 6 (2-4): 237-253; WWF. 2009. China’s Role in Global Trade: Opportunities and risks in the forestry and mining sector. WWF, Beijing, China. 278 Program on Forests (PROFOR). 2011. Op.cit. 279 Environmental Investigation Agency and Telepak. 2008. Op. cit.

280 Global Witness. 2009. A Disharmonious Trade: China and the continued destruction of Burma’s frontier forests. London, UK; Meyfroidt, P. and Lambin, E.F. 2009. Forest transition in Viet Nam and displacement of deforestation abroad. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106 (38): 16139-16144; WWF. 2009. The Greater Mekong and climate change: biodiversity, ecosystem services and development at risk. WWF Greater Mekong Programme, Bangkok, Thailand. 281 Environmental Investigation Agency / Telapak. 2005. Op. cit.

288 Ginting, L. and Pye, O. 2013. Resisting agribusiness development: The Merauke Integrated Food and Energy Estate in West Papua, Indonesia. ASEAS - Austrian Journal of South-East Asian Studies 6(1): 160-182. 289 Personal Communication, Benja Mumbai, WWFIndonesia. 290 Environmental Investigation Agency and Telapak. 2009. Up for Grabs - Deforestation and Exploitation in Papua’s Plantations Boom. London, UK and Bogor, Indonesia. ISBN: 0-9540768-8-5

282 Moeliono, M., Trung, L.Q., Utomo, N.A. and R. Andriani. 2010. Who benefits? Small scale tree planters and companies in Vietnam and Indonesia. In: Medved, M. and Božič, M. IUFRO Conference: Forestry in a Changing World: opportunities and challenges and the role of extension and technology transfer – 6-12 June Bled, Slovenia. Slovenian Forest Service, Ljubljana, Slovenia.

291 Filer, C. Op. cit.

283 Sindorf, N. and Wickel, A.J. 2011. Connectivity and fragmentation: Hydrospatial analysis of dam development in the Mekong river basin. Technical report CSPFW2011.1. WWF, Washington DC, US.

294 Shearman, P.L., Ash, J., Mackay, B., Bryan, J.E. and B. Lokes. 2009. Forest Conversion and Degradation in Papua New Guinea 1972–2002. BIOTROPICA 41(3): 379–390

284 Kongrut, A. 2013. Clearing the Way: A new study shows what is wiping out our national forests, and how to find an environmentally friendly way forward. Bangkok Post, 19 October 2013. Available from: www.bangkokpost.com/lifestyle/ family/374915/clearing-the-way 285 Data from Global Forest Watch: www. globalforestwatch.org/country/PNG and www. globalforestwatch.org/country/IDN (accessed 15 February, 2015). 286 Government of Papua New Guinea. 2010. Climate‑compatible development for Papua New Guinea, cited in Babon, A. and Gowae, G.Y. 2013. The Context of REDD+ in Papua New Guinea - Drivers, agents and institutions. Occasional Paper 89, Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia. 287 Filer, C. 2012. The commission of inquiry into special agricultural and business leases in Papua New Guinea: fresh details for the portrait of a process of expropriation. Second International Academic Workshop on ‘Global Land Grabbing’, Cornell University, 17-19 October 2012.

292 Nelson, P.N., Gabriel, J., Filer, C., Banabas, M., Sayer, J.A., Curry, G.N., Koczberski. G. and O. Venter. 2014. Oil Palm and Deforestation in Papua New Guinea. Conservation Letters 7(3):188-195. 293 Source : RISI « International Pulpwood trade review » 2013

295 Filer, C. 2010. The impacts of rural industry on the native forests of Papua New Guinea. Pacific Economic Bulletin 25: 135‑153. 296 Babon, A. and Gowae, G.Y. 2013. The Context of REDD+ in Papua New Guinea - Drivers, agents and institutions. Occasional Paper 89, Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia. 297 RISI, 2013, International Pulpwood Trade Review 298 Uryu Y., C. Mott, N. Foead et al. 2008. Deforestation, forest degradation, biodiversity loss and CO2 emissions in Riau, Sumatra, Indonesia, WWF Indonesia Technical Report, Jakarta, Indonesia http://assets.worldwildlife. org/publications/750/files/original/WWF_Indo_ (27Feb08)_Riau_Deforestation_-_English. pdf?1426774206 299 WWF Indonesia. 2010. Sumatra’s Forests, their Wildlife and the Climate: Windows in Time: 1985, 1990, 2000 and 2010. http://assets.worldwildlife. org/publications/752/files/original/Sumatra%27s_ forests_report_2010.pdf?1418397465 300 Eyes on the Forest, in prep.

49  |  Living Forests Report: Chapter 5

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover

References and endnotes 301 Laumonier, Y., Y. Uryu, M. Stüwe, et al. 2010, Eco-floristic sectors and deforestation threats in Sumatra: identifying new conservation area network priorities for ecosystem-based land use planning, Biodiversity Conservation 19: 1153–1174

311 WWF Indonesia, 2013. Palming off a National Park: Tracking illegal oil palm fruit in Riau, Sumatra. http://assets.worldwildlife. org/publications/581/files/original/WWF_ Indonesia_%2825Jun13%29_Palming_Off_a_ National_Park_FINAL.pdf?1372252854

302 Laumonier, Y., Y. Uryu, M. Stüwe, et al. 2010, Eco-floristic sectors and deforestation threats in Sumatra: identifying new conservation area network priorities for ecosystem-based land use planning, Biodiversity Conservation 19: 1153–1174

312 Eyes on the Forest. 2014. Tiger in your tank? Destruction of Riau’s Bukit Batabuh tiger corridor for palm oil. http://assets.worldwildlife.org/ publications/753/files/original/Tiger_in_Your_ Tank_report_2014.pdf?1418397672

303 Margono, B.A., S. Turubanova, I. Zhuravleva, P. Potapov, A. Tyukavina, A. Baccini, S. Goetz and M.C Hansen. 2012. Mapping and monitoring deforestation and forest degradation in Sumatra (Indonesia) using Landsat time series data sets from 1990 to 2010. Environmental Research Letters 7: doi:10.1088/1748-9326/7/3/0340 304 WWF-Indonesia & Setiabudi, in prep. 305 Trigg, S.N., L.M. Curran and A.K. McDonald. 2006. Utility of Landsat 7 satellite data for continued monitoring of forest cover change in protected areas in Southeast Asia, Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, 27: 49 – 66 306 Gaveau, D.L.A., J. Epting, O. Lyne, et al. 2009. Evaluating whether protected areas reduce tropical deforestation in Sumatra, Journal of Biogeography 36: 2165–2175 307 WWF Indonesia, 2013. Palming off a National Park: Tracking illegal oil palm fruit in Riau, Sumatra. http://assets.worldwildlife. org/publications/581/files/original/WWF_ Indonesia_%2825Jun13%29_Palming_Off_a_ National_Park_FINAL.pdf?1372252854 308 Roosita, H., H. Waluyo, S. Bakar et al. 2010. Roadmap towards the Sumatran Ecosystem Conservation: Sumatran vision for the year 2020. Internal Affairs Department, Public Works Department, Forestry Department et al, Jakarta 309 CIFOR. 2011. Indonesia’s forest moratorium. http://www.cifor.org/publications/pdf_files/ WPapers/WP-76Murdiyarso.pdf 310 WWF-Indonesia & Setiabudi (2015) Sumatra forest and land cover change 1985-2014 database.

313 Gaveau, D.L.A., Wich, S., Epting, J., Juhn, D., Kanninen, M. and Leader-Williams, N. 2009. The future of forests and orang-utans (Pongo abelii) in Sumatra: predicting impacts of oil palm plantations, road construction, and mechanisms for reducing carbon emissions from deforestation. Environmental Research Letters 4: doi:10.1088/1748-9326/4/3/034013 314 WARSI, Frankfurt Zoological Society, Eyes on the Forest, WWF-Indonesia (2010) Last chance to save Bukit Tigapuluh. http://awsassets.wwf.or.id/ downloads/last_chance_for_bukit_tigapuluh__ warsi_fzs_eof_wwf_14dec2010_.pdf 315 The Jakarta Post (13 October 2014) Trans Sumatra toll finally breaks ground. http://www. thejakartapost.com/news/2014/10/13/transsumatra-toll-finally-breaks-ground.html

322 Eyes on the Forest (11 October 2014) 12 forestry companies, 5 plantations fail in fires prevention audit. http://eyesontheforest.or.id/?page=news&a ction=view&id=757 323 www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/FOR/globiom/forestry. html 324 Kindermann, G.E., Obersteiner, M., Rametsteiner, E. and I. McCallum. 2006. Predicting the deforestation-trend under different carbon-prices. Carbon Balance and Management 1(1). www. scopus.com; Kindermann, G., Obersteiner, M., Sohngen, B., Sathaye, J., Andrasko, K., Rametsteiner, E., Schlamadinger, B., Wunder, S. And R. Beach. 2008. Global cost estimates of reducing carbon emissions through avoided deforestation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 105(30):10302-10307; Havlík, P., Schneider, U.A., Schmid, E., Böttcher, H., Fritz, S., Skalský, R., Aoki, K., De Cara, S., Kindermann, G., Kraxner, F., Leduc, S., McCallum, I., Mosnier, A., Sauer, T. and M. Obersteiner. 2010. Global land-use implications of first and second generation biofuel targets. Energy Policy 39 (10): 5690-5702. 325 Dudley, N. (ed.) 2008. Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.

316 The Star Online (19 October 2013) Indonesia in no hurry to revive Malacca-Dumai bridge project. http://www.thestar.com.my/News/ Nation/2013/10/19/Jakarta-Dumai-Bridge/ 317 Information from WWF Indonesia 318 APP (2013) Forest Conservation Policy, https:// www.asiapulppaper.com/ 319 APRIL (2014) Sustainable Forest Management Policy http://www.aprilasia.com/ 320 Rainforest Alliance (2015) An Evaluation of Asia Pulp & Paper’s Progress to Meet its Forest Conservation Policy (2013) and Additional Public Statements. http://www.rainforest-alliance.org/ sites/default/files/uploads/4/150205-RainforestAlliance-APP-Evaluation-Report-en.pdf 321 Eyes on the Forest (2014) APRIL/RGE continues deforestation. http://assets.worldwildlife.org/ publications/749/files/original/APRIL_RGE_ report_November_2014.pdf?1418396227

50  |  Living Forests Report: Chapter 5

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS WWF WWF is one of the world’s largest and most experienced independent conservation organizations, with more than 5 million supporters and a global network active in over 100 countries. WWF’s mission is to stop the degradation of the planet’s natural environment and to build a future in which humans live in harmony with nature, by conserving the world’s biological diversity, ensuring that the use of renewable natural resources is sustainable, and promoting the reduction of pollution and wasteful consumption. This report was produced in collaboration with: IIASA Founded in 1972, the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) is an international research organization that conducts policy-oriented research into problems that are too large or too complex to be solved by a single country or academic discipline. IIASA is sponsored by its National Member Organizations in Africa, Asia, Europe and the Americas. It is independent and completely unconstrained by political or national self-interest. www.iiasa.ac.at Contributors Editor in Chief: Rod Taylor Technical Editors: Nigel Dudley, Sue Stolton Deforestation fronts researcher: Sophie Clay GIS: Aurelie Shapiro, WWF-Germany Editorial Team: Huma Khan, Barney Jeffries Thanks to colleagues at WWF including: Naikoa Aguilar-Amuchastegui: WWF Forest Climate Programme (FCP); Lucy Aquino: WWF-Paraguay; Mauro Armelin: WWF-Brazil; Will Ashley‑Cantello: WWF-UK; Jean Bakouma: WWF-France; Cesar Balbuena: WWF-Paraguay; Thomas Barano: WWF-Indonesia; Sarah Bladen: formerly WWF Greater Mekong Programme, Hanoi; Neil Burgess: UNEP-WCMC formally WWF

Conservation Science Programme; Henry Chan: WWFMalaysia; Stuart Chapman: WWF Greater Mekong Programme; Sandra Charity: WWF Living Amazon Initiative; Paul Chatterton: WWF Forest and Climate Programme; Tim Cronin: WWF-Australia; Pete Cutter: formerly WWF Greater Mekong Programme, Bangkok; Andre da Silva Dias: WWF Living Amazon Initiative; Adrian Dellecker: WWF International; Kalame Fobissie: WWF-CARPO; Elaine Geyer-Allely: WWF International; Peter Graham: WWF Forest and Climate Programme; Kwai Hin Han: WWFMalaysia; Nyeema Harris: Luc Hoffmann Institute; Mary Lou Higgins: WWF-Colombia; David Hoyle: WWF-Cameroon; Milward Kuona: WWF Miombo Programme; Thibault Ledecq: WWF Greater Mekong Programme; Sabien Leemans: WWF-Belgium; Anna Carolina Lobo, WWF-Brazil, Marc Languy: WWF Congo Basin Programme; Karen Lawrence, WWF-UK; Gretchen Lyons: WWF International; Tom Maddox: WWF-Indonesia; Claudio Maretti: WWF Living Amazon Initiative; Mayra Milkovic: Fundacion Vida Silvestre, Argentina; Federico Monte Domecq Rolon: WWF-Paraguay; Geoffrey Mwangela: WWFTanzania; Emmanuelle Neyroumande: WWFFrance; Nyambe Nyambe: WWF-Zambia; Denise Oliveira: WWF Living Amazon Initiative; Bruno Perodeau: WWF-CARPO; Miriam Prochnow: Apremavi, Brazil; Anwar Purwoto: WWF-Indonesia; Juan Carlos Riveros Salcedo: WWF-Peru; Steven Price: WWF-Canada; Enos Shumba: WWF Miombo Programme; Michael Stuewe: WWF-US; Cesar Freddy Suarez: WWF-Colombia; Mario Barroso: WWF-Brazil; Martin Taylor: WWF-Australia; Daniel Tiveau: WWF-Cameroon; Yumiko Uryu: WWFIndonesia; Jaap van der Waarde: WWF-Netherlands; Linda Walker: WWF-US; Stephan Wulffraat: WWFIndonesia; Timothy Geer: WWF International; Ivy Wong: formerly WWF-Malaysia; Mark Wright: WWF-Guianas; Julia Young: WWF-UK; WWF-India.

With special thanks for review and contributions from: Kim Carlson: University of Minnesota; Sophie Clay: Researcher, UK/Australia; Chris Elliott: Climate Works, San Francisco; Edna María Carolina Jarro Fajardo: Colombia National Parks; Peter Lee: Global Forest Watch Canada; Julia Miranda Londono: Colombia National Parks; Kathy MacKinnon: IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas; Kent Redford: Archipelago Consulting, Maine, USA; Jeffrey Sayer: James Cook University, Cairns, Australia; Jeff Wells: International Boreal Forest Campaign; Alison Woodley: Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society; Stephen Woodley: IUCN; Tanya Yanitskaya: FSC Russia. Designed by Miller Design WWF International, Avenue du Mont Blanc, 1196 Gland, Switzerland www.panda.org ISBN 978-2-940443-32-1 Publication details Published in 2015 by WWF – World Wide Fund for Nature (Formerly World Wildlife Fund), Gland, Switzerland. Any reproductions in full or in part of this publication must mention the title and credit the above-mentioned publisher as the copyright owner. © Text and graphics: 2015 WWF All rights reserved The material and geographical designations in this report do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of WWF concerning the legal status of any country.

51  |  Living Forests Report: Chapter 5

COVER CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Glossary & Acronyms References & Endnotes Acknowledgements Back Cover

+5000 WWF IN BRIEF

WWF has over 5,000 staff worldwide

+100 WWF is in over 100 countries, on 6 continents

If there is no URL

1961

Why we are here To stop the degradation of the planet’s natural environment and to build a future in which humans live in harmony and nature.

+5M WWF has over 5 million supporters

WWF was founded in 1961

OR

With URL - Regular

Why we are here To stop the degradation of the planet’s natural environment and to build a future in which humans live in harmony with nature. www.panda.org

© 1986 Panda Symbol WWF-World Wide Fund For Nature (Formerly World Wildlife Fund) ® “WWF” is a WWF Registered Trademark. WWF International, Avenue du Mont-Blanc, 1196 Gland, Switzerland — Tel. +41 22 364 9111 Fax +41 22 364 0332. For contact details and further information, please visit our international website at www.panda.org

Photo: © Michel Roggo / WWF-Canon COVER PHOTO: © Adriano Gambarini / WWF-Brazil